I get emails —
We have a member whose job requires him to miss both services on Sunday. He has asked that he be offered the Lord’s supper during our Wednesday night bible study, which he can attend. Is this proper?
Just my opinion, you know, but Jesus instituted communion on a Thursday evening. And the Jerusalem church “broke bread” daily, which is the same expression found in Acts 20:6-7. And we’re supposed to be silent where the Bible is silent. So I don’t find a command saying, “Take communion on Sunday and only Sunday.”
I’m actually more concerned with the thought of a one-man “communion.” I think a critical purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to take the meal together. And there’s certainly no command against remembering Jesus’ death more than once a week! And so I think he should take communion with others, not shunted away into a side room with a deacon. I’d have his entire class take communion together. It’s a corporate rite. And it would be an act of love by his classmates to join him in communion.
But I suspect there are readers who will disagree.
The scriptures don't call it communion, and they don't give any instructions requiring it to be done together with others. It is the Lord's Supper, and the instructions are to remember Jesus when we do it, and to examine ourselves. We have no example of taking communion alone, but also no instructions prohibiting doing so.
As for the day of the week, the question boils down to the regulative principle, and to whether biblical examples are binding. In the era of the NT church, we only have one specific example of it on the first day of the week, and no clear examples of it on other days. If you hold to the regulative principle and to the binding of biblical examples, then you cannot take the Lord's Supper on any day but Sunday. If those are unsound principles of interpretation then it seems we are free to take communion on any day of the week.
I've always noted that Jesus said (quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 11:26) "whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup …"
"whenever" seems to open the door to "whenever."
A determination to have the Lord's Supper relegates it to a checklist item. It was observed communally (koinania) and that is very clear in 2Cor. Their abuse was selfishness. It's hard to be selfish if you're the only one observing it. Can observing Christ's "supper", that is, the spiritual accomplishment of Jesus, be done with the cup and bread? Is there something magical in the elements? That borders on catholicism.
If you can be with the body, great. If you can't, you haven't sinned, IMO.
I believe that – whether you reckon "first day of the week" beginning at sundown Saturday (as the Jews would) or Sunday (as the Gentiles would), Acts 20 indicates that the intention was to "break bread" then, but because of how long Paul spoke and Eutychus' fall from the window, they actually did so the next day (after midnight). Rick Atchley proposes and defends this.
And LaGard Smith makes a case for the last meal celebrated by Jesus and the twelve to have been on Wednesday night, with His crucifixion actually culminating in His death around the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs before the evening meal on Thursday. That would mean He was in the grave the better part of three days rather than two.
It seems to me that when God wanted to regulate something with particulars He was very capable..Note all the regulations, exact measurement, garment specifications, etc., of the old temple worship. There is a noticeable absence of instruction regarding the Lord's supper except in relation to what it is to commemorate and perhaps the attitude of the heart when doing so.
Tradition has it on Sunday with some scholars suggesting that it was observed on other days of the week. Seems to me there is a great deal of flexibility. Besides, it seems to miss the point that we would refuse to allow someone to remember the sacrifice of Jesus in solemn reverence because of insistence on exact duplication of what the church did in the first century. Especially since "the church" today doesn't use real wine, can't agree on whether it was one cup or many, or whether you can wash the dishes in the building..good grief.. let all who want to remember the greatest sacrifice of all time do it anytime they wish. I doubt God would be displeased. In fact, the rule makers of the 1st century — The Pharisees — weren't real high on Jesus' list… If anything I would avoid mimicking their actions…
Jay,
i am one of those readers who disagrees, but i think you've pointed out the more important matter–the communal nature of the event. For that reason, it seems to me the Sunday night LS for those who missed (at least the way it's typically done) really misses the point. If there are people who just can't make it Sunday morning, why not all wait for each other and just have everyone take it Sunday night? Having a "make up session" does seem to give it a very check-list character.
–guy
Umm, because 60% of our congregation won't darken to door on Sunday evening anyway.
Just saying…
Question…….was the "agape feast" as some have called it…the gathering of believers to share in a covered dish event.(didn't know green bean casserole was that old of a recipe)..was that the way the folks originally celebrated what is now known as the Lord's supper? Or was that a different event that was done in addition to the Lord's Supper ?? Are there any historians that can speak to the change from covered dish to unleavened chips ??
We celebrate the LS on Sunday morning and Sunday evening. Different people attend each service but some attend both – and some of those who attend both services take it twice as they are communing with different people morning and evening and they believe "whenever" means "whenever". We don't have Wednesday night classes. Some of our connect groups (which meet on various days during the week) celebrate the LS in their groups and others don't.
Price,
Here a couple of posts where I covered the history of the love feast in some detail —
/2010/03/the-lords-supper-t… /2010/03/the-lords-supper-f…
What Wendy describes is what we do as well. Personally I am a "whenever" means "whenever" guy and encourage observance from time to time during small group meetings (which meet on nights other than Sunday.)
Jay,
While it is true that Jesus instituted the LS on a weekday, there is simply no reason to press the day of the institution. Specifically, there is no theological point about the institution day, but rather it was the event – Passover, and what would become a day in the kingdom/church. Further, Jesus only celebrated the Lord’s Supper on Sunday as a communal meal, after coming into his kingdom.
As to a Wednesday celebration, I believe that there are good theological grounds for both a communal and a Sunday only observance. Even after investigating the Jerusalem church, the ECFs are helpful. Ultimately, an individual taking the communal Lord’s Supper on a day other than the Lord’s Day seems disconnected from its purpose.
I don’t know what is being more legalistic; take it in disconnected form on Wednesday, take it with a believer at work, or to suggest not taking it until he can with the assembly. Again, even if one were to debate the day, there is no debating the communal aspect. — Taking it in disconnected form is like baptizing babies… what’s the point if not legalism to "take it"? Therefore, I would suggest two options (1) Take it on Sunday with his family or group of believers who come to his home (2) Do not take it until he is able to partake with a Sunday assembly.
Did the 1st century church assemble in order to take communion or did they celebrate communion when they assembled?
Did the 1st century church take communion in any place other than an upper room?
Do we search the scriptures to justify our traditions or do we search the scriptures to find Jesus?
Yesterday evening I brought bread and wine to a sister who could not attend our meeting. I got this idea from the ECF who sent the deacons with the Eucharist to those whe were sick.
On the other hand: I'd strongly advice to change the job if the job hinders you to take part in the assemblies. I am not a "Sunday-Sabbatarian", but I really cannot understand how in a supposedly predominant Christian Country shops and jobs must run on a 24/7 basis without a common day of rest and worship. We are better off in Europe in this regard …
Alexander
“Whenever” my daughter has a birthday party, she likes to have a cake from Costco. Of course, she only gets a birthday party on her birthday (or the closest Saturday to it). “Whenever” I have a Superbowl party, it is always on a Sunday.
"Whenever" my daughter has a birthday party, she likes to have a cake from Costco. Of course, she only gets a birthday party on her birthday (or the closest Saturday to it). "Whenever" I have a Superbowl party, it is always on a Sunday.
"Whenever" my daughter has a birthday party, she likes to have a cake from Costco. Of course, she only gets a birthday party on her birthday (or the closest Saturday to it). "Whenever" I have a Superbowl party, it is always on a Sunday. Sometimes, "whenever" can be limited to a specific day of the week or year.
I haven't been here in a while and the format has obviously changed. I would rather be "Hank" and not Salty513 but, do not know how to change it now. And I did not intend to have three consecutive posts all saying the same thing. I've tried to "collapse thread" but, it looks like it hasn't collapsed at all.
When I was a young boy in East Texas the small church where my father preached observed the LS in the assembly on Sunday mornings. the LS was also offered during the assembly on Sunday evenings if someone was there who had not already taken it earlier that day. On one particular evening when the LS was served in the evening to the two members who were not there that morning, our two new members from Washington State looked perplexed. They didn't know what was going on. They did not ask one of the adult members but instead asked me (I was about 14). Why are they doing this?…they asked. When I explained it to them, they could not believe it. They had never heard of such a thing. They thought this small church (which was old line COC) had strayed. Where they had come from, the LS was offered on Sunday mornings in the assembly, and if you missed it….then you missed it. The year was about 1976.
so what does God think about observing/taking the Lord's Supper several times on a Sunday due to visiting another congregation…. My Mom's pretty certain it is forbidden…. I told her she got extra credit on the big bulletin board in the sky…now, she can skip a future Sunday and it will all even out…. :>)
Behold the extreme to which our historical hermeneutic has led! How could God possibly be displeased by someone remembering what Christ did for them twice on the same Sunday? What does this say about our understanding of God? Very perplexing.
Want to read two excellent discussions of the LS? Read "Come to the Table; John Mark Hicks and One Bread, One Body; Al Maxey. If you tend toward legalistic patternism I suggest you stay away from the Al Maxey book. You won't like what he has to say, but he will cause you to think, and think, and think.
Searcher….If Al Maxey wrote it, it's worth reading…!!
Jay, thanks for the links…It seems I'm behind on my reading !! Feel like I'm working on a PhD in Theology !! LOL
Yep, fortunately for us Scripture doesn't actually define "whenever" to exclusively be a Sunday.
Jay….Excellent references from the ECF's. regarding the Agape Feasts/Lord's Supper…..Loved the fried chicken comment. May borrow that one !!
The First Day Of The week is Sunday .And its Sunday All day . so any time during that day is right .not 10 oclock or whatever timewe meet .besides the Lords Supper is not the bread of life .it is aremr=emerance of his death and ressurection His word is the bread of life .
Jay posted some links above to some of his earlier remarks that included historical evidences from early 2nd century witnesses to the Lord's Supper traditions of the early church…It seems that the tradition began as a daily full meal activity, moved to once a week and then back to daily for several hundred years and then later to more of the type we see today…Seems to me that the Christians of the early church figured there was a great deal of freedom in how they went about celebrating and remembering the work of Jesus at the Cross… Sounds like a good example to me… Wonder who brought in all the rules, exclusions and damnations ??
Hank,
I've deleted the duplicate posts. And I think you're now appearing as "Hank." Glad to have you back commenting.
Isn't that a bit "one-dimensional"?
It is a meal of rememberance
Let's start with this one: "This do unto my rememberace" – it was a bit of a surprize when I first heard, that this is actually pointing to Christ remebering us! It is unto Christ's remeberance. Now if that sounds weitd to you, check for instance on Gen 9:14-15: Who is reminded of the covenant there? God sees the rainbow and is reminded. The rainbow is unto His remeberance. Lev 26:42 also states that God remebers His covenant with His people. Just let this sink in a bit … It's like a man remebering his coming wedding feast when he reads a letter from his fiance. Christ is rejoicing when we gather unto Him as His bride to remember Him – and He remebers us and the covenant.
It is a meal of the unity of the body
We are the bread and we partake of the bread. The bread therefore takes on a second meaning here: It is not the body of Christ on the cross, but the church as His body. The One bread (and the One Cup) signify One-Ness in Christ. This is to be found in 1Co 10:17 and it has a parallel in the idea of the shewbread in the temple.
It is eating from the altar
Just a few verses later (1Co 10:18), Paul points to the type of the Jewish Priests eating from the altar. They ate the sin-offerings in a holy place (Lev 6:26). And Hebrews adds that we have an altar from whioch we eat, but those who still serve in the Old Covenant must not eat it (Heb 13:10)
Partaking of the Lord's Body and Blood is therefore more than a symbol
Paul uses the word "to partake" in 1Co 10:16: We drink from a cup but we partkae of His blood; we eat bread, but we partake of His body. This word actually means: communion (?????????); that's where we have the term communion forthe Lord's Supper. To have communion with a person mwans to have fellowship, to be together. To have communion with the body and blood of Christ can only be understood in the light of 1Co 10:18 where he uses the same word (partakers ofthe Altar – again from ?????????). So in a spiritual and literal sense that is beyond our imagination we DO eat His Flesh and DO dring His blood. It is a spiritual food and dring not just a symbolic meal (1Co 10:3-4).
And so that's not too far from John 6 anymore, isn't it?
See, how Paul uses very different aspects of the same meal in just a few verses? It is far more that just a meal of rememberance, and therefore we should not miss it lightheartedly. It is a spiritual meal that (like the bread from heaven sustained the earthly life of Israel in the desert) will sustain our spiritual life on our pligrimage. If we see it in this light it becomes much more than a religious ordinance we observe strictly every 1st day of the week, but it becomes vital, essential, sustaining, even necessary for our walk with Him.
Therefore – very seriously: I am convinced that the Lord is very pleased when we change a job that hinders us from communing with Him and His body. He will honor and bless such faith that does not bow before material necessities but seeks Him and His Kingdom first. Those who do otherwise are in danger of perishing, like the seed that is sown among the thorns.
Alexander
First off,
Alexander wrote:
"I am convinced the Lord is very pleased when we change a job thta hinders us from communing with HIm and His body. He will honor and bless such faith that does not bow before material necessities but seeks Him and His kingdom first."
Amen, amen!
I must say it's extremely sad and an indictment and speaks to how compromising we are in our American churches when on a website full of ministers, elders who read and comment, it takes a brother from Germany in Alexander to be the first to speak the truth bodly about this really being the solution and true problem.
The solution is not to adjustment and change our practice and beliefs to accomodate our culture, but for us to conform to the will of God! Begin looking find a job that allows you to assemble with the church regularlly!!!
I think we've gotten "too smart" for our own good here folks!!
Amen, Amen, Alexander! Your words should convict and shame us!
Now, let me say about this business of taking the Lord's Supper other than on Sunday.
Me thinks since the death of Christ and His resurrection are the core elements of the gospel, they belong together and are matters of "first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3ff). The Lord's Supper and the first day of the week also belong together (Acts 20:7) to help the church focus on those matters of "first importance".
Common sense can see that what is tied together in reality should be tied together in memorial.
What other practice when the Christian community is assembled to worship is as gospel-centered as taking the Lord’s Supper?
Would taking the Lord's Supper on Wednesday reflect the total facts of the gospel?
We take the Lord's Supper every first day of the week because no other arrangement reflects the gospel as well as this practice can and no other practice can deliver the assurance of God's authorization like Acts 20:7 can.
When we can sure that God is pleased when we follow a practice that the Apostles approved as per the taking of the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7).We cannot be sure that any other practice will be approved by God except that which has been revealed in the New Testament. (I think 1 Cor. 4:6 may applies here)
Keep in mind about the Acts 20:7 passage. Paul spent an entire week in Troas—even though he was on a rushed schedule, in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (20:16). One would not delay a rushed trip simply to partake of a common meal or meals—which could have been eaten on any of the delayed days. It would seem he desired to meet with the entire church at the formal, weekly worship assembly—a circumstance he repeated both at Tyre (Acts 21:4) and Puteoli (Acts 28:14).
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown explain the timetable:
“Arriving on a Monday, they stayed over the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s Day following; occupying himself, doubtless, in refreshing and strengthening fellowship with the brethren during the interval…. This…plainly indicates that the Christian observance of the day afterwards distinctly called “the Lord’s Day,” was already a fixed practice of the churches.” ((Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, p. 208)
Again, they day appears to have been set, so much so that they did not altered it to accommodate the fact that Paul was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem. That suggests there was more to it than mere custom or habit but God’s design.
Rex Turner so eloquently affirmed:
“The first day of the week is Christ’s resurrection day. It is the greatest day in all the annals of history. What could be more appropriate, therefore, than for the disciples to assemble on Christ’s resurrection day, the first day of the week, to break the bread and to drink the fruit of the vine in commemoration of Christ’s death, his atoning blood, his resurrection, and his promise to come again? He who contends that Christians may with equal propriety and authority partake of the Lord’s Supper on some other day than the first day of the week has not grasped the real significance of what took place on that certain first day of the week, nor does he recognize how that the first day of the week is the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10).”
May God helps us all to repent from such wordly and unbiblical practices and thinking in our congregations.
Humbly,
Robert Prater
Robert,
It always amazes me to read the rhetoric you use…to call for "…repentance from such worldly and unbiblical practices and thinking…". Just because you happen to disagree, you then have to use such strong rhetoric in an almost verbally violent way and yet you feel completely at liberty to proof-text whatever passage of scripture you want in ad-hoc fashion to support your deductive reasoning. Before throwing out an accusation of worldly and unbiblical practices and thinking, you should really consider if your ad-hoc and deductive use of scripture isn't just a bit worldly and unbiblical.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
BTW Robert,
Regardless of what I believe about when Christians should share in the Lord's Supper, I understand why you disagree with others on this comment thread and why you hold the belief you do. I just think you ought to avoid such demonizing rhetoric (especially when, as I alluded to in my previous comment, your ad-hoc and deductive use of scripture is certainly not without question). It is entirely possible for Christians to reach a different conclusion then what you or I or anyone else might believe…that doesn't make them "worldly" and "unbiblical" even if they are wrong. If that were not the case, then we all must be regarded as worldly and unbiblical because none of us has the Bible perfectly interpreted.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Alexander!
Did you do a mini worship service for that sister? Do you believe that the Lord supper is the most important act of worship? Why do you use wine? The bible says: fruit of the vine . Is Eucharist a Greek word? We need to call things by bible names!!
Uh…Alexander, I'd help you with these supposed specks in your eye some have alleged, but, you see, I've got this massive log in my own eye. Sorry. lol
(In all seriousness I appreciate what you and many others have contributed to this and other discussions here. Keep up the good work, brother).
BTW, Jay, I cannot connect using Facebook anymore. I get a popup with code of some sort while it tries to connect, but nothing ever happens. I don't know enough to sort out what the popup is about, as none of it's in plain English. 🙂
THE LORD’S SUPPER
One of the main purpose of the first day of the week assembly was to “break the bread” or partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts. 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17:34). As instituted by Christ, the supper consisted of bread and fruit of the vine (Mt. 26:26-29). In the early church, all Christian partook of both elements in a reverent manner (1 Cor. 11:17-29).
Early disciples never considered that the observance of the Lord’s Supper caused to be sacrificed anew. They believe that Christ offered, in contrast to the daily sacrifices of the Jews, “One sacrifice for sins forever” and that “ by one offering he hath perfected forever then that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:11,12,14).
Thus, the Lord’s Supper was not a re-occurrence of His death each week but a remembrance of Christ’s one death ( 1 Cor. 11:24-26). Consequently, the early church did not think that the bread and fruit of the vine changed into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. The Expression, “This is my body…. And blood,” meant that these elements represented (symbolized) His flesh and blood. Paul instructed Christians to eat bread ( not flesh), to drink fruit of the vine (not blood) and to “discern” or mentally meditate about Christ’s body and blood while eating and drinking (Mt. 26:26-29; 1 Cor. 11:26-29). The church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper proclaims the Lord’s death until He comes again (1 Cor. 11:26).
Let me answer:
a) No, I did not hold a worship service, but I brought "a piece" of our worship service to her home and talked with her for aboutr 15 min about her day and what she was dreading the following day … But she appreciated my visit and partook of bread and wine in her private devotion.
b) The most important "act" in worship is lifting up your heart. But the central activity we do together is having communion in the full sense of the greek word koinonia.
c) Do you really want to make me a Greek and Hebrew word study on the different words for wine (fermented and unfermented)? I urge you brother, to NOT make an innovation from the 1800s sound like a Biblical Pattern! OF COURSE they used fermented wine back then. And so do we, mixed with water as they did accirding to the earliest sources and Prov 9.
d) Yes, Eucharist is a Greek word meaning thanksgiving. This is one "act" that is always mentioned: Jesus took the bread and gave thanks (eucharisteo). That's where the term Eucharist comes from. And that's what we do every time before breaking the bread: We give thanks.
Alexander
Rex,
It grieves me that you feel such about me. Please, please know it is not my intention to exhibit an ugly spirit or as you describe my words to be “almost verbally violent.” I don’t want anyone reading this to think such about me.
I will resolve to say and do better. Certainly we do have our differences but we should be able to discuss things lovingly and kindly so that all my be edified.
I ask for forgiveness if my words have not been such.
Yet, I do want to address some of your comments against me.
You accuse me of feeling “completely at liberty to proof-text whatever passage of scripture you want in ad-hoc fashion to support your deductive reasoning.”
This is really nothing but an Ad Hominem attack. Frankly, I grow tired of this same old repeated mischaracterization about me.
You should either provide specifics statements and passages where I’m guilty of such, or you should retract such statements and repent.
When you say,
“It is entirely possible for Christians to reach a different conclusion then what you or I or anyone else might believe…that doesn't make them "worldly" and "unbiblical" even if they are wrong.”
Yes, but if what they wrongly believe, is not according to revealed truth or Divine authority, then my friend, it does make them “unbiblical.”
You then say,
“If that were not the case, then we all must be regarded as worldly and unbiblical because none of us has the Bible perfectly interpreted.”
Here you foolishly overstate your position. My friend what proves too much proves nothing. The truth can usually be found somewhere between the two extremes.
Just because we agree that we don’t always interpret the scriptures perfectly and have all perfect doctrinal knowledge, doesn’t change our need to only believe and practice that which is according to the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
Truth can be understood correctly. And God expects us to know it and to abide in it (Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; Jno. 8:31-32; 1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Jno. 9). We can understand the Bible, and we are urged to “all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Cor. 1:10)
If what I believe and practice does not flow from the scriptures, then it is worldly thinking, and is not God’s truth. Godly thinking is consistent with what the scriptures teach us. We are believers are called to study the scriptures that they may be fed with godly thinking that has been revealed by God.
Paul instructed Timothy to ““hold fast the pattern of sound words,” (2 Tim. 1:13) Sound words are words that are healthy, whole, and wholesome. They are words that are true and sure, that which will not fail. This type of statement is also used in 1 Tim. 6:3, “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness.”
Those words which are inspired of God and delivered by the apostles and prophets are good, sound, wholesome words. Anything that contracts what is revealed in Scripture is unsound and unstable. Further these are the words that are on accordance with the gospel (1 Tim. 1:10-11).
Whether you and I or anyone else likes it or not, there are many today who are not content to abide within God’s word for their pattern, but those who desire to be pleasing to God will abide in the sound doctrine or teachings of Christ and His apostles. (cf. John 8:31-32; Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:42)
We should be people who abide in “sound doctrine” or healthy teaching.
Some people don't like it when sound doctrine is taught and false doctrine is exposed. Jude appeals to us to "contend earnestly", to fight strenuously, and to labor fervently in defense of the truth of the faith which was once for all delivered to us. (Jude 3)
People who try to change the sound doctrine of the faith must be corrected. People who continue in it must be rebuked. And the sheep who are exposed to it must be told that it is false.
Again, this is not to say that we don’t walk this road cautiously. Of course we must recognize our own imperfections. We must deal patiently with others and respond with love at all times.
Bottom line. Me thinks wrong doctrine or the misrepresentation of right doctrine has consequences.
Now of course right doctrine should never be about just being right. Rather, the point of right doctrine is always about establishing and growing right relationships. Perfect doctrine or knowledge without love is worthless. 1 Corinthians 13:2
And Paul regularly makes the necessary connection between doctrine and practice. For example, in his letter to the Ephesians he uses chapters one, two, and three to explain what God has accomplished through Jesus Christ. Then he spends the final three chapters four, five, and six, to demonstrate how we should live in light of that truth. A similar pattern is found in both Colossians and Romans.
May none of us ever be guilty of undermining or downplaying or minimizing the idea of sound doctrine.
Humbly,
Robert Prater
The Jerusalem church “broke bread” daily. Are you sure Jay? Did you read carefully? Acts 2:46 “ So continuing daily with one accord in the temple (They were daily teaching the Gospel to the Jews), and breaking bread from house to house ( Lord’s Supper “???????= kl?ntes =breaking), they ate their food (??????= troph?s=of nourishment ) with gladness and simplicity of heart,”
This version clarify the confusion about daily.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,
Jay said : “So I don’t find a command saying, “Take communion on Sunday and only Sunday.” No, because the bible speaks about the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) the word Sunday comes from the Gregorian calendar. There is one reasons why Christians celebrate the Lord’s supper on Sunday. 1) The Lord Jesus was raise up that day. (Mt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; “John 20:19, Luke 24:34-36 “
Jay said: “I think a critical purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to take the meal together”. Are you saying that the Lord’s supper is a meal together? I think you are confuse about the word meal (??????= troph?s=of nourishment) this is not the Lord’s supper, This is the Greek word transliterated ( ?????? = klasei = breaking , ??? = tou = of , ????? = artou =bread)
. This point is clarified by the Apostle Paul in the Church at Corinth. The Lord’s Supper was never meant to be a major meal. Paul said of the Corinthians eating, “it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.” (1 Cor. 11:20 ESV) They were filling up okay, those that could (1 Cor. 11:21), but Paul says it was not the Lord’s Supper they were eating. They thought it was but he
didn’t. There ought to be a lesson in that for us. How you do things makes a difference. What you call eating the Lord’s Supper may not be how God sees it.
Eat at home is his admonition. “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Cor. 11:22 NKJV) The Lord’s Supper was never about filling up. Not then, not now, not ever. Do that at home.
In fact, when the Lord’s Supper was instituted the Bible says of Jesus that “he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying ‘Drink from it, all of you.’” (Matt. 26:27 NKJV) Mark says, “they all drank from it.” (Mark 14:23 NKJV) There is little doubt but what one cup was used in instituting the Lord’s Supper. One cup and all the apostles drink from it. Does that give you the idea that they are doing what the Corinthians were doing in the Corinthian’s abuse of the institution? Are they gulping down large quantities
of drink in partaking of the Lord’s Supper? To ask is to answer to the man who will reason. The Lord’s Supper is not about filling up or satisfying hunger. But, the modern day desire is to have a meal (pass the chicken and mashed potatoes and gravy) as a part of the worship and we will somewhere during
that time frame take time out and observe the Lord’s Supper. It is said in so many words that all Paul meant when he said to eat and drink in their houses (words to that effect) is to just eat enough at home to knock the top off your hunger so you do not make a hog of yourself when you arrive at the
assembly where a meal will be served and eat it all up before others arrive. Believe it if you can.
The very verses that are said to prove this prove just the opposite, verses 33 and 34 of 1 Cor. 11. “Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment.” (NKJV) The Lord’s Supper is not about satisfying hunger. Eat at home is what Paul says about satisfying hunger but that will never be good enough for the guy that wants to eat in worship.
And there’s certainly no command against remembering Jesus’ death more than once a week! So, do you offer the Lord’s supper on Wednesday or in other events like a meal?
It’s a corporate rite. Are you talking about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation?
Robert,
You said I should "You should either provide specifics statements and passages where I’m guilty of such, or you should retract such statements and repent."
Your last comment is a perfect example.
And for the record, this is not me saying you are a bad Christian because I know you are not…I know you love the Lord, want to do what you believe the Lord instructs, and teach others to do the same. I just think the way you employ scripture is wrong.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
On the contrary, brother.
Jesus took the bread "while they were eating" (Mat 26:26) in the context of the Passover meal which was a full meal.
Thesis 1: Breaking the Bread was instituted during a meal
Paul puts his NO to meat sacrificed to idols netxt to the teachings on the table of the Lord. We cannot partake of both tables – table refers both to the altar (called the table of the Lord in Mal 1:7) and to eating a real meal (Luke 7:36).
Thesis 2: The phrase "Table of the Lord" refers to eating a meal together
In chapter 11 Paul describes a mess. Some women did not cover their heads (a rebellion than became the norm today), there were schisms in the church, and the rich oines despised the poorer ones. How did they do it? By starting eating before the poorer ones arrived friom their chores. Now, this is very important: Dont ever imagine that a Sunday service took place at 10 in the morning back in NT times. Sunday was a work day and they met in the evening after work was done. And it was the lot of slaves and poorer people to have to work, while the rich ones had more or less relaxed days. So they assembled while the workers were still finishing the job. When they arrived, most of the food (or the best parts of it) were already etan up, and a good amount of wine (obviously very real wine) had been drunk. That's the situatrion, and that's what Paul is addressing. He is not against eating the meal tiogether, but against the spirit of "class distinction" that is another division in the body of Christ. What he said at the end: "Wait for one another" does not condemn eating, but urges them to eat TOGETHER, slaves and free ones alike. The last word: If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, does not refer to the whole congregation, but only for those who are so hungry that they cannot wait. The Greek Word for Lord's SUPPER (deipnon) means the full meal in the evening and is correctly translated as supper in this context.
Thesis 3: The Lord's Supper is a common meal including the Breaking of the Bread
There is a lot more I could add …
Alexander
Rex,
My brother, you are the one who spoke disparagingly and accused me of “completely at liberty to proof-text whatever passage of scripture you want in ad-hoc fashion to support your deductive reasoning.”
I will not allow your false assertions about me to go unchallenged. Either I am guilty of such in specific instances and need to change, or you are guilty in principle of libel and slander against me.
Now, what is really going on between us and my other progressive brothers is that we view Scripture from different places. Our hermeneutics are not the same.
Now, if you want to discuss that I’m game. I’ve done so with Jay and others in these thread comments about biblical authority and such.
But I grow weary from my time commenting on progressive blogs of this self-righteous arrogant hypocrisy in attitude. It’s like apparently what's "good for the goose isn't good for the gander," with my progressive friends?
I have personally been the recipient and other moderate conservatives with whom progressives disagree with have been called sectarian, legalistic, judgmental, and narrow-minded, etc. and quite frankly mocked at and ridiculed for enjoyment. In their eyes, we are legalistic and Pharisaical and lost. Somehow they are never able to see their own judgmental attitudes against us.
Yet, when we dare call progressives to carpets for teaching and promoting that which we believe is without Biblical authority (such as God will accept those who haven’t been immersed into Christ or taking the Lord’s Supper “whenever”), at times by some we are all just a bunch of legalistic right-wing judgmental fanatics.
No, I’m not claiming to not have any “mud” on my hands. Because I do. I have been guilty of getting upset with my progressive friends at how they are treating me, when in reality I’ve not always treated them like I should have. I have made comments or statements that I have regretted and wish I hadn’t written. Some I have even asked for another’s forgiveness over. Jay can attest to this even.
I know better. The spirit of Christ and the principle of the Golden Rule rebuke and condemn me. I know Christ demands me to treat others the better than they treat me,
It’s like the old saying, “It’s much easier to find fault with others than it is to establish my own integrity.”
Maybe it is simply time to disarm and pray for healing.
Humbly,
Robert Prater
Rex,
I understand your great concern about making deductions and interpretations of the Bible and equating them with the “doctrine of Christ” and, therefore, equal to the very will of God. I share your concern about making strongly condemned statements against those not in total harmony with one’s own deduced doctrines.
I’m not claiming perfection here, at ALL! I am fallible, faulty, weak, and ignorant. I cling to the grace of God in my life and ministry.
And I want to desperately avoid the two extremes I see right now in churches of Christ of those on the far left and what to completely remake the church into something more ecumenical and denominational in nature and jettison baptism for salvation, role of women in the assembly, instrumental music, even the frequency of the Lord's Supper, to name a few and those on the far right who refuse to concede or admit or make any corrections or changes in our beliefs, practices and approaches to scripture and make laws where God has not made any.
I want to only focus on the Scriptures. Because, JESUS SAID: "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32 NASB). "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds" (2 John 8-11 NASB).
I want to only abide in the doctrine of Christ, not the precepts of men. The teachings of Christ are found in the New Testament Scriptures, not in the teachings of fallible men based on their own deductions, inferences, and/or implications.
Jesus said, "And the one who keeps His commandments abides in Him. And we know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us" (I John 3:24 NASB). Is this a serious issue? You bet your life it is.
Tragically, many unsuspecting persons have fallen prey to enticing rhetoric and have been converted to a faulty hermeneutic and not to Christ Jesus. They are blindly following the blind guides. "And He (Jesus) spoke a parable to them: A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can be? Will they not both fall into a pit" (Luke 6:39 NASB)? We can’t sit idly by and let it happen.
May God help us all to encourage our leaders, our teachers, and our preachers to reject the doctrines that are mistakenly taught as the word of God and the doctrine of Christ, based on the precepts of men, however sincerely they are believed or framed
Sincerely your brother in Christ,
Robert Prater
Brother,
I have some questions for you about your answer.
a) Are you getting this practice from the New Testament Church? Where do we find an example of such practice in the primitive Church? I think this practice start after the New Testament was completed by the wrong called :” CF’S” that is called by the apostate Universal Roman Church that actually is the most worldly denomination adapting his didache to the culture of every country.
b) . Are you sure that is the most important act of Worship? Do you follow the example of the church of Christ that you find in the scriptures? Or Do you do whatever you want to make your heart feel lifting Up? Like practicing ritualism Things that was never don’t by the church that you read in the New Testament. Of Course part of the assembly is have Koinonia each other during proskunein (Jn. 4:24). All Act of worship are important in front of God as the will of the heart to worship God in a good spirit (voluntary) and Truth (According to the word of God Jn. 17:17).
c).- . What are your sources ? Why Jesus did not use the word Wine (onion) or other type of new wine (gleukous) in Mt. 26:29 instead he use “ampelou” this mean vine? We know that all wine his origen is from the vine but what kind of wine do you use fermented or unfermented?
d).- Yes, Indeed the greek word eucharisteo if found and mean “thanksgiving”. Why do you called just “Give thanks” Was that all about just give thanks as we include it in our prayers to our father for blessing our food or lord’s Supper? The Lord’s supper include more than just give thanks. Why did you choose called with the Greek term instead the Lord’s supper? Is that being more biblical or mystical ? Because that word has been twisted and give the sensation of being the transubstantiation’s Doctrine. First taught in the year 1,000 A.D., officially adopted by the Catholic Roman church in the council of Lateran, 1215 A.D. This doctrine lead people to believe that by prayer and especial powers of man, the fruit of the vine and the bread are mystically and literally changed into the literal blood and body of Jesus Christ. What do you suppose would happen, should someone prepare the loaf and fruit of the vine and put deadly poisoin in it, then give to a priest for “transubstantiation?” Do you think for a moment the priest could change the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ sufficiently to keep it from killing him? There is no priest who would dare attempt to do it? The doctrine of the transubstantiation is a mockery of God! (1).
1).- Howard, V.E. What is the church of Christ? 6 Ed.Texarkana,Texas, 1979. Central Printers & publishers. P. 73-74.
2).- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Dear Guestfortruth
Let me address some of your input:
First: No, this is not reported in the NT (that someone brings bread and wine to those who could not come), but love may find creative ways to bless others.
One of the earliest references to this practice is found in Justin Martyr's 1st apology, more or less as a side remark: And the deacons carry away a portion to those who are absent.
Second: You present church history in a sharp black and white contrast. Until the death of Johne everything was pure and undefuiled, and as soon as he died, somehow the Holy Spirit disappeared from the church and they fell completely apostate and turned Roman Catholic. At least that#s how it sounds, and in fact, many argue this way. But consider this: This would mean that e.g. Onesimus, the former slave who was evangelized by Paul, fell apostate around 100 AD while being an overseer in Ephesos. Or Clement, a co-worker of Paul who became a leader in Rome .. OK let's consider him a bit: He wrote his letter to the church at Corinth at a time where John was still alive. Was this a letter full of apostasy or not yet, because he wrote it a few years before the end of the pure apostolic era? Take Ignatius or Polycarp, both Co-workers and friends of John – did they fall apostate as soon as John died?
Take this into consideration also: The NT writings were collected and approved by the 2nd century church. Was this an apostate church? Is our NT a result of picking and choosing by an apostate clergy?
This makes no sense, does it?
There is a development to the worse during history, but that does not mean, that everything the 2nd century did can be dismissed as irrelevant, apostate, defiled. Rather they show how the church operated in much more detail than the NT. So they are a very important commentary to the NT, a commenatry shaped by life not by theological studies 2000 years later.
The burden of proof is rather on your side, brother: Show me any church prior to the late 1800s that used grape juice in the Lord's Supper. You won't find any. This innovation is a result of the US-American temperance movement. The same is true for the multiple cups which did not exist in the church prior to the 1880s and were an overreaction to the discovery of germs. And both innvovations are presented as biblical today, which is really ridiculous. And both rationalizations turn of an overemphasis of a Greek word or phrase. The "magic word" to defend the multiple cups is "metonymy" – boy, what discussions I had with this word … And the "magic phrase" in the unfermented wine dogma is "Fruit of the vine".
Now to the scriptures. First of all, it was well known that our Lord drank wine, he even multiplied wine at a wedding feast. He once said:
Of course that was a polemic exaggeration, but the people knew full well the differernce between a person who abstained from wine and those who did not. And they find their excuses not to believe any of both. But it is clear, that Jesus was not viewed as being ascetic.
Second: All types of the Lord's Supper in the Old Testament, even the feasts of the Lord, included wine. As an example, we may look at Proverbs 9:
Brother :Alexander,
It’s a good intention to take the Lord’s supper to a sister if she is sick. Are not members available to help for a short services? ,God really knows what is happening with the member, but to be biblical as the New Testament Christians is good to go with some members and participate in a short service, so that way she can have a full sense of Koinia . and all act of worship are important . The Lord’s supper is not the most important act of worship ,but is important as the others acts of worship. You said” That all the church houses meet every two week? There are any law restriction to meet two times during every two week? Are you preaching in an Islamic country? If is that the case is understandable!
About your question : why we can not use the patristics writings as an example of the Church is because they are not inspired. The Apostasy started during the ministry of the Apostles and the New Testament reveal that, During the life of the apostles there were false teaching and the apostasy was in progress during those times. See the evidence from the inspired writings : The Falling Away .- The Holy Spirit using the apostle Paul said: in 2 The. 2:3-10. “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin[a] is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God[b] in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God…..” Here the apostle clearly emphasized that the time would come when there would be a falling away of the Church”. False Apostles.. as mentioned in 2 Cor. 11:13-14. “13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.” – any man claiming himself to be an apostle, or the successor of an apostle, is anti-Christ obviously with Satan as his promoter!
In 1 Tim. 4:1-3 declare “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” Sounds as if that might have been written today, doesn’t it? Events and conditions of the future foretold by infinite wisdom through the inspired apostle! I believe the inspired writer more that other writing after the first century. According to tradition the Apostle Paul was kill at Rome at year 67 A.D. The scripture mention a clement in Phil. 4:1-3 “Therefore, my beloved and longed-for brethren, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, beloved. 2 I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life. This clement that the scriptures mention does not fit the man made chronology, “ Do you believe that Clement of Rome was the coworker of Paul? Tertullians who wrote a little about him was born 160 – c. 220 AD. The question here is: How tertullians knew clement of Rome? Because according to tradition he was the 3er. Pope of Rome (Patriarch ) and his papacy was from 92-99 and he die 2 years later. While the apostle John was in patsmos The Clement that the bible Speak is not the clement of Rome that the tradition mention. Two reasons 1.- there are discrepancies about dates. Supposedly his First Letter of Clement address a problem of the Church at Corinth as he was a pope. 2.- He never claim being inspired as the apostles. Unfortunately that show the presence of Apostasy in the church of Christ. Do you believe that 1 Clement is inspired? By the providence of God the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were circulating in the Lord’s Congregations. During the patristic age from 100-200, were written a lot literature that was not inspired as like some papyri Manuscripts of Greek New Testament, Early codices lectionaries, didache, marcians N.T etc. – did they fall apostate as soon as John died? No,The apostasy was in progress at that time . the proof as you said: they were not guided literally by the Holy Spirit as the apostles , there is recorded in the patristic era about a False Teacher name Montanus. Have you read about him? He was claiming doing miracles by the Holy Spirit. And the leaders of that time name him a heresy.
TAlexander ask : Take this into consideration also: The NT writings were collected and approved by the 2nd century church. Was this an apostate church? Yes, but we need to trust in the providence of God “ Do you believe that God is in control? Do you believe in Jesus’ statement that “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” Is our NT a result of picking and choosing by an apostate clergy? Have you read about the process of Canonization? How careful they were to choose what books were inspired and which were not? There were some books that did not pass the New Testament Canon. Mainly those that contradict the other letters of the new Testament (Gnostics writings etc.) and also from the patristic era. But also they fail about the manuscripts from the Old Testament they add the Apocryphal books of the Jews Scriptures.
Those writings from the patristic era are good commentary about what happened to the Church after the death of the apostles and are testimony of what really happened, but unfortunately are not inspired. And we can should not imitate something out of the New Testament teaching.
Alexander said “The burden of proof is rather on your side, brother: Show me any church prior to the late 1800s that used grape juice in the Lord's Supper. Alexander ask “So why "Fruit of the Wine"? Because if you think that the wine give some fruit, is just been drunk , Why not? Because some among your member can be a stumble about drinking Alcoholic beverages.
The only thing we might süpeculate about is whether there will be fermented wine in the Kingdom or not, which we cannot answer for sure.
Alexander said : Of course that was a polemic exaggeration, but the people knew full well the differernce between a person who abstained from wine and those who did not. And they find their excuses not to believe any of both. But it is clear, that Jesus was not viewed as being ascetic. Is this your view of the life of our Lord Jesus as those who said that ? Do you believe what they said? Do you believe this passage from the scripture? Hebrews 4:15 “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” Are you saying that Our Lord Jesus does not seen drunkards as a sin? What does the bible says?
What did Jesus use when he instituted the Lord’s supper during the Passover?
The Bible never refers to the liquid used in the Lord's Supper as "wine." There is a Greek word, "Oinos," uniformly translated "wine,') but it is never used with reference to the Supper. R. C. H. Lenski maintains that the expression, "fruit of the vine," is a Hebrew liturgical formula for wine and he concludes that the liquid must be fermented. But the argument is just as strong to the contrary: Why did Jesus never use the term "wine?" Why did the Apostles or the New Testament writers never use the word "oinos" in connection with the Supper. The Scriptures use the term "fruit of the vine" and leaves the choice of fermented or unfermented in the realm of judgment.
Tangentially I will mention that the term "fruit of the vine" does not give the right to use watermelon or tomato juice on the basis that they are the fruit of the vine. The term "vine" (ampelos) throughout the New Testament, without exception, refers to the grape vine. It is true that a fig tree could be planted in a vineyard, as in Lk. 13:7, but an "ampelos" does not produce figs (James 3: 12).
The phrase “the fruit of the vine” is used in only three places in the New Testament:
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:27-29).
Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:23-25).
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:17-18).
In order to identify the specific “fruit of the vine” referred to by Jesus, we must analyze the words of the phrase in light of how the first-century audience would have understood them. The Greek word translated “vine” in these three instances is ampelos. Arndt, et al., define the term as “vine, or grapevine” (1979, p. 46). In virtually every instance in the Bible when the term is used, it refers to a grapevine. For instance, in James 3:12 several Bible translations render the word ampelos as “grapevine.” The New King James version reads: “Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs?”. In Revelation 14:18, we read: “And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, ‘Thrust in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for her grapes are fully ripe.’” Notice that the term “vine” is used, then modified by the phrase “for her grapes…,” obviously referring to a grapevine.
Another Greek term relevant to this discussion is ampel?n, deriving from the same word as ampelos. Arndt, et al., give as its almost universal meaning, “vineyard” (p. 47). References in the New Testament using the term to denote a vineyard filled with grapes include Matthew 21:33-41, Mark 12:1-11, and Luke 20:9-16.
As to the nature of the fruit of the vine, employed during the Passover supper, the New Testament (Matthew 26:26-29, etc.) itself is not explicit in its definition of the expression. Linguistically, it could denote grape juice, or, on the other hand, what we commonly call wine (with some degree of fermentation) according to the Jews tradition.
Some contend that it must have been wine since, at the time of the Passover feast in the spring, grapes were not yet ripe; and, as there was no way of preserving fresh juice, the substance used by the Lord must have been fermented.
But that argument is not conclusive, because it is known, from ancient sources, that there were ways of preserving juice, thus preventing fermentation. The ancient Roman statesman, Cato, said, “If you wish to have must [grape juice] all year, put grape juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After thirty days take it out. It will be grape juice for a whole year” (De Agri Cultura CXX).
Question: Would not consistency demand that the man who says, "fermented wine must be used because Jesus used it" use red wine and mix it with water?
The argument is made that due to the time of the year (the Passover is in April, approximately) grape juice could not have been kept without fermentation until the Passover. McClintock and Strong point out that wine could be kept for about a year in an unfermented state (quoting Cato, De Re Rustica, c. 120. McC & S, X, 1014).
On the other hand, there is considerable historical evidence that the common Passover beverage used by the Jews in the first century was wine. It should be noted in passing, however, that the wine of the first century, though containing a degree of fermentation, did not have nearly the potency that modern wines possess. Note the following quote from Professor R. Laird Harris:
All the wine (paschal) was light wine, i.e., not fortified with extra alcohol. Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation (“alcohol” is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink (i.e., whiskey, gin, etc.) and the twenty per cent fortified wines were unknown in Bible times. Beer was brewed by various methods, but its alcoholic content was light. The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half of the percentage of the sugar in the juice. And if the alcoholic content is much above 10 or 11 percent, the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases. Probably ancient wines were 7-10 per cent . . . . To avoid the sin of drunkenness, mingling of wine with water was practiced. This dilution was specified by the Rabbis in NT times for the wine customary at Passover (1980, 376).
The practice of the church after the apostolic age must be viewed in light of the apostasy then in progress. Especially is this so when dealing with matters not mentioned in the Scriptures, such as the question under discussion. But granting that the practice was not a child of apostasy, this only proves that the church exercised the right of judgment between fermented and unfermented fruit of the vine.
It is an absolutely established fact that Jesus’ disciples, as well as the broader first-century readership of the gospel accounts, understood Jesus’ phrase “fruit of the vine” to refer to juice from grapes.
If Christians today want to follow the example that Jesus set during the Lord’s Supper, and the apostles followed throughout their ministry, then they will drink juice from grapes during their observance of the communion.
For countries that don’t produce “ Grapes” most of the year and is very difficult to find ‘fruit of the vine” (Grape Juice) is allow it by expediency with the approval of God , therefore, might be the prevailing factor in the case posed. If both grape juice and wine are available, grape juice, one would think, would be the wiser choice. It would avoid the appearance of evil, perhaps be less offensive (an occasion of stumbling), and not be an avenue to temptation in some (who might have a weakness for strong drink).
It might be mentioned also that in some regions where grape juice is not readily accessible, wine could be used, but boiled first, so as to destroy any alcoholic content. How to Dealcoholize wine? Home Alcohol Removal: There is an option for doing this at home. Take a pot and put the wine in it. Turn the heat on medium-low. Allow it to heat until it gets up to 140 degrees. You can use a meat thermometer. Then, maintain the 140 for about 45 minutes. That should remove about 95% of the alcohol. From there, let the wine cool, covered. Put it back in the bottle. If you lost a lot of volume, it's because the water evaporated. Put some distilled water or filtered water in it to bring it back to its original consistency. So, how well does this work? Well, it's inconsistent and you cannot get all of the alcohol out, just most of it. The wine will oxidize a bit from the heat so it will lose some of its vibrant color and flavor. The potency of the acid is affected as well. You will be left with a flat tasting wine.
Sources/Footnotes
• Harris, R. Laird. 1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Chicago, IL: Moody.
• Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.
• Lightfoot, John. 1979. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.