Truth and the Interpretation of Scripture

The Lord's Supper - Part 7

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Apologetics

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2006-03-12

Synopsis: John Weaver continues his series on the Lord's Supper by examining the elements used by Christ at its institution. He argues that the bread must be unleavened, taken from the Passover table, and that the liquid in the cup was real wine, not grape juice. He explains the figure of speech metonymy to interpret 'fruit of the vine' in Luke 22 as wine. Weaver emphasizes the principle of sola scriptura, urging submission to Scripture over tradition. He clarifies that advocating wine in the Lord's Supper is not an endorsement of social drinking or abuse, and distinguishes between the religious/ceremonial use of wine (commanded) and social use (a matter of Christian liberty). He promises future messages on wine's condemnation and commendation in Scripture and on answering objections.

[John Weaver] The message you are about to hear was produced by Dominion Ministry. If you would like to support this ministry by becoming a sermon partner or obtain additional high-resolution CDs, DVDs, or MP3s featuring the teaching of Pastor John Weber, please visit the Dominion Ministry website at www.dominion.org. www.dominionministry.com. This ministry is completely supported by donations and it is through those donations that we are able to provide sermons for sermonaudio.com. Please visit our website at www.dominionministry.com to subscribe or make your donation today. Thank you. Let's open our Bibles today to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And let's begin reading there with verse 20, and we're not going to read a lot today just simply because I've got a lot of information for you. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 20, When you come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What?

[John Weaver] Have you not houses to eat and drink in, or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which you were betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had suffed, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do you as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord and worthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not deserting the Lord's body."

[John Weaver] Now let me just stop there for today and take just a few moments to review and try to tie things together so you can see the progress that we've made in this. Remember I told you that the Lord's Supper is indeed an ordinance. It's a sovereign ordinance since God himself instituted it. It's a gospel ordinance since it gives us the realities of the gospel. We've looked at the names of the Lord's Supper in the Bible. We've looked at the significance of the Lord's Supper in the Bible and showed it to you under the various meals that are represented thereof. We've seen the partakers of the Lord's Supper, those who are qualified to partake. We've also looked at the reproof that the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Church because of all the divisions, which resulted even in the division in the Lord's Supper.

[John Weaver] There were personal divisions, there were pastoral divisions, there were judicial divisions, intellectual, spiritual, social, and cultural divisions. Let me just say it very plainly, Corinth was indeed a problem church. And so the Apostle Paul not only had to write them two letters, but he also had to personally visit them as well.

[John Weaver] Now, the last time we studied here, we looked at the time and the servers of the Lord's Supper. And I believe the key phrase as to the time is, as often as you do it. He said, this do is remembrance of me. And in the servers we looked at, I pointed out that traditionally deacons have always done it, but the Bible does not require that. But rather, I believe a godly man should be used to help in that as well. Now, if you've got a deacon who is a godly man, wonderful. But there have been plenty of deacons I know that are ungodly men, so God requires, I believe, godliness involved in it. Now, today we're going to begin our study on the elements that are involved in the Lord's Supper.

[John Weaver] So, let me ask this question. Which elements, or what elements, were used by Jesus Christ? What were the elements that our Lord used when he first initiated and instituted the supper? Let me ask you another question. I want you to think about this. What were the elements that the Christian church has used throughout the centuries? Here's another question. Does it matter whether or not we use the right elements. Does it matter whether or not we make substitution for the elements?

[John Weaver] Now, in order to answer some of these questions, I want to share with you a number of things today, but I want you to remember, please, that the Lord's Supper was instituted in the context of the Passover. Now, that does not mean that it is identical with the Passover. Certainly it is not. It's a totally separate institution. But if you were to read Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, you would find that this supper was instituted at the end of the Passover meal. So when you begin to understand that, then at least it should give you a simple understanding as to, in all probability, what the elements were than our Lord used when he instituted the Lord's Supper. So let's begin with the elements and the first one I'm going to deal with is bread.

[John Weaver] The Bible says very plainly that he took bread and he broke it. And he gave to them and said, take this is my body, which is broken for you.

[John Weaver] Now, the word for bread is the Greek word artos, which is translated in our Bibles as bread, loaf or showbread. Now, the word artos refers to food that is composed of flour mixed with water and baked. It also is used of the bread that Israelites used in the form of an oblong or a round cake that could be cut or broken in pieces. It was also, the word is also used of the loaves that were consecrated by our Lord. It is also used of the word used at the love feast and at the Lord's supper.

[John Weaver] Now the Bible tells us that Jesus took bread. Where did he get the bread? And the answer would have to be from the table on which they had been eating. So that means then when he took the bread, the Passover bread was what? Unleavened. So very obviously, the bread then has to be unleavened bread.

[John Weaver] Now, if you look in your Bibles, whole 1 Corinthians 11, but look in your Bibles to Matthew 26 and verse 26. Let me just show you. Undoubtedly, he took the bread from the Passover table. In Matthew 26 and verse 26, the Word of God says this, and as they were eating, what meal were they eating? The Passover meal. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and break it and gave to the disciples and said, Take it. This is my body. Now, as they were eating, who is the they? evidently refers to the disciples, because when you look back in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians 11 now and verse 25, the Apostle Paul tells us, after the same manner also he, Christ, took the cup when he had supped. So Christ evidently had finished his meal. The disciples may have still been eating, but since he finished his meal then, he took the bread And of course, he instituted then the Lord's Supper. So the bread then was taken from the Passover table, which meant it was unleavened bread.

[John Weaver] Now, if you look in Matthew 26 and verse 17, if you would. Matthew 26, verse 17.

[John Weaver] Now, the first day of the feast of what? Unleavened bread. What is that? That's the Passover. So very obviously then the bread was unleavened. If you would go back in your Bibles to Exodus chapter 12, and begin reading there with verse 8. We won't read the entire passage, but Exodus chapter 12 and verse 8. Here is the institution of the Passover. And they shall eat the flesh and that night roast with fire and unleavened bread And with bitter herbs they shall eat it, eat it not raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire his head with his legs, with the pertinence thereof. And you shall let nothing of it remain into the morning, and that which remaineth of it into the morning you shall burn with fire.

[John Weaver] And thus shall you eat it with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand. You shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover. And if you'll skip down to verse 14, And this day shall be unto you for a memorial. And you shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread.

[John Weaver] And he goes on and he talks about how that there is to be no leaven down in the house. So, The bread of the Passover was unleavened, our Lord took the bread, and He very clearly then used it to institute the Lord's Supper. Now, you remember in 1 Corinthians 5 and verse 7, the Bible tells us that even Jesus Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us. So there should be no discussion, there should be no misunderstanding concerning the bread. It was, it should be, it must be unleavened bread. Now, you and I would not even think of changing the unleavened bread. We would not even consider replacing it with cookies or doughnuts.

[John Weaver] Why would we not do that? You would say, well, first of all, it would spoil the type because Jesus Christ And oftentimes, leaven in the Bible is a symbol of sin. You remember that? Why was it required to be unleavened? Because Jesus Christ is the sinless Son of God. And when you use leaven, you're mixing evil with it then. And that's why we will not substitute doughnuts and cookies and light bread and things like that. Because it would not only spoil the picture and the emblem and the type, But we would also be arrogating to ourself authority that we do not have. Jesus Christ is the one who instituted the Lord's Supper, and he instituted it with unleavened bread. So very clearly then, no one has the authority and no one has the right to change that element, nor any of the elements.

[John Weaver] Now, secondly today, I want to deal with the liquid. Ask yourself this question. What was in the cup that our Lord used when he instituted the Lord's Supper? Let me tell you and then listen carefully, because I'm going to begin a message today, which is going to take me two messages to finish. I believe the liquid in our Lord's cup was wine. Pure and simple. Now, I did say wine, W-I-N-E. Now, please listen carefully. Wine is wine. Fermented wine is a redundancy. If it is wine, it is fermented. If it is not fermented, it is not wine. Now, I know that many Christians and many preachers will howl and whine over this point, but please listen to me carefully. Do not challenge me until I finish the next two messages. Then if you want to challenge me, that's fine. But I'm going to show you and I believe prove to you from the Bible that it was indeed real, genuine Wayne. Now, immediately someone's going to say, but now, Brother Weaver, I read my Bible.

[John Weaver] And if you'll go to Luke 22, there you have the institution of the Lord's Supper. Just like you have it in Matthew 26 and just like you have it in the book of Mark. And boy, when you get to Luke 22, you get blown out of the water because the Bible says very plainly there that it's the fruit of the vine. Well, let's look in our Bibles, Luke chapter 22 and verse 18. Look what our Lord says. Luke 22, verse 18. And remember now, verse 17, let's read verse 17, just so that you can see it's the Lord's Supper in view.

[John Weaver] And he took the cup and gave thanks and said, take this and divided among yourselves. For I said to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come. Wow. You say, well, there it is, Brother Weaver, fruit of the vine, grape juice, plain and simple. No, not plain and not simple. You've got to understand the figures of speech that are used in the Bible. E. W. Bullinger has a book just about, I guess, three inches thick, just on the figures of speech in the Bible. I'm not going to go over all of these figures of speech, but there are metonymies, ironies, metaphors, synecdoches, hyperboles, allegories, parables, and a host of others. And there are certain things in the Bible you cannot understand unless you understand the figures of speech.

[John Weaver] Let me give you two of them. The first one is a hyperbole. Many of you know what a hyperbole is. The Greek word hyper means over, above, and beyond. And baleen means to cast or to throw. So what is a hyperbole? It's something that you cast or throw over and above. It is, basically speaking, an exaggeration so that you will understand the greatness or the vastness of something. Let me give you a good illustration of a hyperbole.

[John Weaver] Look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy chapter 1 and verse 28. Deuteronomy 1, verse 28.

[John Weaver] Now you remember how the ten spies brought back an evil report. You remember that? Look what they said. Deuteronomy 1, verse 28. Whither shall we go if our brethren have discouraged our hearts, saying, The people is greater and taller than we. The cities are great and walled up to heaven. And moreover, we've seen the sons of the Anacondas there.

[John Weaver] Now, let me ask you a question. Did those walls literally reach into heaven? No. That's a hyperbole. They were great walls. They were big walls. They may have been taller than the average city wall, but they did not literally reach up into the heavens. So here is a hyperbole. They've walled up into heaven. No. It's there for you to understand that they were mighty walls, but they certainly did not reach into heaven.

[John Weaver] You can find hyperboles all through the Bible. It's a figure of speech. It's just like we said, if I've told you once, I've told you 10,000 times. Have I ever told you anything 10,000 times? No, it's a figure of speech. It's a hyperbole. I've told my wife something maybe 10,000 times, but Jay's pointed her. But you understand what I'm saying. Nobody's told anyone something 10,000 times. It's just a figure of speech. Saying I've told you a lot of times.

[John Weaver] Well, what is a metonymy? I'm going to show you this from the Bible. A metonymy. The Greek word meta means with. Onomia is the Greek word for name. The word metonymy means with name or the same as a name. Here's what a metonymy is. Listen carefully and we'll show you several illustrations of it. A metonymy occurs when the matter or the substance of a thing is given for the thing itself.

[John Weaver] Let me say that again. A metonymy occurs when the matter in a TPER or the substance of a thing is given for the thing itself. Let me give you the illustrations. Look in your Bibles, first of all, to the book of Nahum. Nahum chapter 2, one of the minor prophets. Nahum chapter 2. And look at verse 7. Nahum, verse 3 it is. Nahum chapter 2 and verse 3. Nahum chapter 2 and verse 3. Here's the metonymy.

[John Weaver] In fact, Let me read just verses 1 and 2 just so that you can see the context. He that dasheth in pieces has come up before thy face. Keep the munition, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily. For the Lord hath turned away the excellency of Jacob as the excellency of Israel. For the emptiers have emptied themselves out and marred their vine branches.

[John Weaver] Now look, the shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet, the chariot shall be with flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken." Now we're discussing a picture of warfare. And here the Bible says the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.

[John Weaver] Now how Horrified would you be if you were in a walled city and you saw some soldiers come up and grab all the fir trees and start trying to shake them. You wouldn't be too afraid, because especially if a fir tree was that big around, they're not going to shake it. What does this mean when he says the fir trees shall be terribly shaken? Lances and spears were made out of fir wood. They're shaking their lances. They're shaking their spears.

[John Weaver] So here is a metonymy. Here the matter or the substance of something is put for the thing itself. So since they were made out of fir wood, the fir tree shall be terribly shaken. That's a metonymy. Look in your Bibles, if you would, to the book of Lamentations, right after the book of Jeremiah. Lamentations 3 and verse 7. Lamentations 3 and verse 7. Here's another metonymy. Look what Jeremiah says, he hath hedged me about that I cannot get out, he hath made my chain heavy. Guess what the word heavy is? It's the word brass. He hath made my chain brass. He made my chain brazen. In other words, what he is saying is, when he's made my chain heavy, he's made my bondage hard and cruel and heavy. That's a metonymy. He's made my chains brass. Very obviously, if you're chained and you've got heavy chains on, you're suffering. That's a metonymy. Look in your Bibles to Psalm 132. Psalm 132 and verse 11. Here's a metonymy. Psalm 132, verse 11. Look what the Scripture says, the Lord has sworn in truth unto David, he will not turn from it of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

[John Weaver] Wait a minute. What's the fruit of his body? It's a child. It's a male heir, it's a descendant. So when he says of the fruit of thy body, while I sit upon the throne, the matter or the substance is split for the thing itself. He's talking about a child. He's talking about a male descendant. That's the metonymy. Look in Psalm 127 in verse three, since you're there, Psalm 127, verse three. Here's another metonymy. Low children are an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb is his reward. Well, what's the fruit of the womb?

[John Weaver] Is it a puppet, a baby doll? No, it's a baby. The fruit of the womb is his reward. So here the substance or the matter of something is put for the thing itself.

[John Weaver] Now, look in your Bibles to Psalm 49 and verse 11. Psalm, not Psalm 49, I'm sorry, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Genesis 49 and verse 11.

[John Weaver] Here's another one, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Look what the Bible says. Binding his foal unto the vine and his ass's colt unto the choice vine, he washed his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes. Now, wait a minute. If he washed his garments in wine, And his clothes and the blood of grapes are not his garments and his clothes the same thing? Well, of course. Well, what's the blood of grapes? It's wine. What is wine? It's the blood of grapes. It's the blood of grapes. If you look in verse 12 to show you he means wine, his eyes shall be red with wine and his teeth white with milk. So it's a metonymy. And when our Lord said in Luke 22 that he would no longer drink of the fruit of the vine, That is metonymy. That is where the substance or the matter is put for the thing itself. The fruit of the vine is wine. It's not grape juice.

[John Weaver] I'm not going to get into this now, but there's no way in the world back in those days you could prevent grape juice from fermenting. To prevent it, you have to have refrigeration. They didn't have refrigeration. So the fruit of the vine was wine.

[John Weaver] Now, as we dig our way through this subject, we must remember one thing, that our interpretation of the scripture must conform to the analogy of faith. What do I mean by that? I mean this. We cannot take one passage like Luke 22, the fruit of the vine, and say, well, that means grape juice, when very obviously in other passages in the Bible, it does not mean grape juice. In other words, we have to consider each passage in the analogy of faith in the general teaching of the entirety of the Word of God.

[John Weaver] Now, the Bible gives us this principle in 1st Corinthians 2 and verse 13, when God says, Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." So we compare Scripture with Scripture until we find out what the analogy of faith really is. So we cannot maintain that the fruit of the vine in Luke 22 is grape juice when other passages of the Bible say no, it's not grape juice, it is wine. First of all, let me say this, the issue of using wine in the Lord's Supper will do at least three things for us, I hope, I pray. What are the three things will this issue do for us? First, and hopefully, it will make us search the scriptures for ourselves.

[John Weaver] You remember what the Apostle Paul taught in Acts chapter 17? And then he commended those Bereans. He said, but these were more noble than those in Thessalonica. Why? In that they searched the word of God daily, whether these things were so or not. So first, it ought to make us search the scripture and compare scripture with scripture for ourselves. Secondly, it will test our fidelity to scripture.

[John Weaver] You know what we've said all along? We've said Sola Scriptura. That is, the scriptures alone are our sole authority for faith and practice.

[John Weaver] Now, let me ask you a question, don't you think about this? Are the scriptures in reality your sole authority for faith and practice, or do you include, well, that's the way I was raised, or this is what I've always believed? You follow me? It will test our fidelity to Scripture. Thirdly, it will test our submission to Scripture. Will we bow to the word of God? Or will we fall back upon what we've always been taught, what we've always believed and the way we've been raised and the way we've always done it? You follow me? There's a big difference between Submission to the word of God. And tradition. You see, Isaiah 8 in verse 20 says this to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it's because there's no light in them.

[John Weaver] Now, I want to give you a quote because I can tell you this firsthand. Whenever we hear something new and I've already mentioned this and especially in reference to those two messages resisting the truth. But whenever we hear something new or different, we automatically have a tendency to shut our minds and say that cannot possibly be true. But can you imagine the difficulty that Martin Luther and those men who followed him had in their day, coming out of a thousand years of darkness, not having the Word of God read, but believing the church and the church fathers. I want you to listen to what Martin Luther said. If you have difficulty in bowing to scripture, consider these words. Martin Luther writes, no one will believe how great an ordeal it is and how severe a shock when a person first realizes that he must believe and teach contrary to the fathers, especially when he sees that so many excellent, intelligent, and learned men, yes, the best of them, taught thus, holy men like

[John Weaver] Saints Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. I too have often experienced this shock. But in spite of this, that one man, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, must have greater weight with me than all the holiest people on earth put together. When we think of the false doctrine of priestly celibacy, for example, we see how true it is that virtually the whole visible church, including the best people in it, can fall under the spell of error.

[John Weaver] What then, asks Luther, shall we condemn these men? No, I do not intend to condemn Benedict and others, he says, but I do propose to take their books and carry them to Christ and his word as a criterion for comparison. If their doctrine agrees with the gospel, I shall accept it. If not, I shall say, you may be a holy man, but you will never subject me to your rule, for it is a human Bible.

[John Weaver] Therefore, let the devil adopt it. I do not want it. Strong words. But they're true words. Luther went on to say this should have been our policy long ago. How different the sad history of the church would have been if we had followed this course. And what did he say? He said, all of these learned, godly, holy men, I'm not going to just take what they say, I'm going to take what they say and compare it to the word of God. If what they say agrees with the Word of God, fine. I'll bow to it. If it doesn't agree with the Word of God, I'll refuse it. Let the devil have it. It's a human dogma.

[John Weaver] You see, folks, the whole Reformation really and truly turned and hinged on this one principle, sola scriptura. The word of God alone is to be our sole authority for faith and practice. Listen, listen to what the Westminster Confession of Faith says. Here it is. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined and all decrees of councils. opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined and whose sentence we are to rest can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. Period. Does it matter how holy? Does it matter how ancient? Everything is to be tried by the Scriptures. The Scriptures alone are to be our sole authority for faith and practice.

[John Weaver] And let me tell you something. Whatever the Scriptures teach us, we must believe it and submit to it, whether we understand it or not, or whether we agree with it or not. You know, many of you heard old Lester Rolloff when he was alive. I love that man. Lester Roloff was not a theologian. He was not a scholar. But he could warm your heart like no one else could.

[John Weaver] And I loved to hear him sing, and he couldn't sing. But his heart was so full of the love of the Lord. But I heard him on the radio one time, and he was dealing with Ephesians 1, verse 4. where it says that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Well, I knew Lester Roloff did not understand anything about the doctrine of election. But, you know, I thought, well, I'm going to listen to him. I'm going to just see what he has to say. And when he got to Ephesians 1 in verse 4, Lester Roloff said this. Now, the Bible says we were chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world.

[John Weaver] He said, now, folks, I can't explain it. My mind's not deep enough to understand it, but. I believe it and I bow to it, and then he went right on, you know, I thought, isn't that a wonderful, gracious attitude? He may not have been able to comprehend the doctrine himself, but if the Scripture said that he was going to bow to it, he wasn't going to fight it. Would it be wonderful if all of God's people Refuse to fight against the word of God and just learn to bow to it.

[John Weaver] Now, the reason I said. It's going to take me two more weeks to finish this message, because next week I want to bring a message which I have entitled Wine, Its Condemnation and Its Commendation. You're going to find that wine is both condemned and commended in scripture. And then the next message will be answering questions and dealing with objections. So I want you to understand that we're going to try to be honest with scripture and we're going to look at both the negative and the positive concerning the usage of wine, especially in the Lord's Supper.

[John Weaver] Now, today, what I want to do is just lay down a number of general principles in order to begin the study. And let me just tell you, these general principles need to be remembered. OK, here we go. First. Listen carefully. When I teach that the liquid in the Lord's Supper should be wine. Because that's what our Lord used, I am not advocating an all-out wine or alcohol drinking spree. Do you understand that? It is not my intention, purpose, or aim to encourage anyone to throw all caution to the wind and engage in the use of alcohol.

[John Weaver] That is not my intent whatsoever. We shall see from the Scripture that the same Scripture that commends the use of wine in certain situations also condemns the abuse of wine in every situation. We must understand that there is a proper use of alcohol and there is a misuse of alcohol. In fact, we must understand that that is true with practically everything in our life. There is the proper use and there is the abuse. And I understand that when I teach this, there may be some who will rest the teaching to their own destruction. However, that does not make the teaching untrue nor the doctrine wrong. We must teach the truth and we must preach pure doctrine, even if some do abuse it and misuse it and rest it to their own destruction. Why do we continue to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do not some abuse it? Yes. Do not some misuse it? Yes.

[John Weaver] Do not many refuse to believe it? Yes. But it's still true. It is still accurate. You see, it is my responsibility. To teach the truth. And it's your responsibility to use the truth correctly. So please understand that the perversion and misuse of any doctrine does not nullify its veracity, that is, its truthfulness and its scripturalness. For instance, I could ask you, are fornication and adultery rampant in our world today? Well, of course. What is fornication and adultery? It is a misuse and abuse of the sanctity of sex. Just because there are fornicators and just because there are adulterers does not nullify the sanctity of sex in marriage. You follow me? Are there thieves in this world today? Yes. Are there robbers? Well, just because there are thieves and robbers does not nullify the right of private property. I can still own things and still possess things just because there's someone out there trying to steal from me.

[John Weaver] I mean, come on, let's be honest. You don't throw out the doctrine just because some abuse it and misuse it. Are there rebellious children in this world today? Well, of course there are. Oh, does that mean then we should quit teaching children, obey your parents and the Lord for this is right, honor thy father and thy mother for this is first commandment promise? No. It means that teaching needs to be taught even more. Heresies and perversions of any doctrine do not mean that the doctrine should not be taught, rather it emphasizes the need for the truth to be taught even more.

[John Weaver] So please do not understand, or please understand, I should say, that I am not advocating or saying that an unbridled and unwise use of wine is in any way pleasing to God. It is not. However, I am saying that the liquid in the cup should be wine, and as I shall show you before I close today, there is a difference between the religious use of wine and the social use of wine.

[John Weaver] So, my first general principle is this. Just because I am saying that the liquid in the Lord's Supper should be wine does not mean that I am advocating that everybody throw all caution to the wind and go out and buy 16 bottles of wine. I'm not saying that at all. OK, secondly, and I especially want to warn and admonish our older children and teenagers. Listen carefully what I'm about to say. You may understand the proper use of wine and the proper use of alcohol, and you may not abuse it or you may not misuse it, however, That does not mean that you may use it without the consent and knowledge and approval of your parents.

[John Weaver] I don't care how old you are. I don't care if you are 21. If you are living at home, you are under the authority of your parents. And children are commanded to be under authority. Even teenagers. even older teenagers. So although there may not be anything wrong biblically with a glass of wine or drinking a glass of wine, it would be wrong if you did it without the knowledge and consent of your parents, because then you would be in rebellion against them. And the Bible says, children, obey your parents and the Lord, for this is right.

[John Weaver] And honor thy father and thy mother. So the act of drinking a glass of wine is not sinful in itself. I understand that. But if you act without the consent and knowledge and approval of your parents, it is rebellion. And it is sin. So I'm just warning you, just because you know the truth about something does not mean that you have the right to use it if you are under the authority of your parents. OK? You got that?

[John Weaver] Write that down in black and white in your notebooks and in your minds and in your hearts. OK, thirdly. The Bible does teach moderation in all things, the Bible says in Philippians four and verse five, let your moderation be known unto all men. Now, since the Bible teaches moderation in all things, that would certainly include the use of alcohol. Listen to me carefully. Since the Bible does say, let your moderation be known unto all men, and that would include the use of alcohol, that does not mean that we have to drink alcohol or that we must drink alcohol on social or regular occasions. You've heard me say this repeatedly.

[John Weaver] I've never had a beer in my entire life. I made that statement to one individual and they said, well, it's about time you had one. I said, no, I've lived 61 years without it. I can live 61 more without it. I have no desire for it. I mean, it's just that simple.

[John Weaver] Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. The only occasion that I would normally have any alcohol is either ecclesiastically or medicinally, and those are proper uses for it, according to the Bible. Although it is not a sin to use alcohol, as it is committed in scripture, that does not mean that we must use it or have to use it on every occasion or on any occasion other than the Lord's Supper. I've been around weddings. I've been in other places where they serve wine.

[John Weaver] And I usually would never take a glass. In fact, if they're serving it, I usually would not even have a glass of tea, lest someone think I was drinking it. I just don't want to do it.

[John Weaver] Now, listen to me carefully. The social and the occasional use of wine or alcohol falls into the area of Christian liberty. And when I say that, I mean this. We may be free to use it, but that does not mean that we have to use it. If Ed is having a glass of wine and he can do it without becoming drunk or without abusing it, fine. He's free to have a glass of wine, but I am also free not to have a glass of wine. You follow me? Just because he exercises his liberty in that area does not mean that I have to exercise my liberty in that area.

[John Weaver] Now, so there are several reasons given in the Bible whereby we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberties. I'm going to give you these. Now, especially one of them I'm going to enlarge upon when I start dealing with objections and answers. But I want to just give them to you today. Here are three reasons given in scripture whereby we may normally forego the lawful exercise of our liberties. Look in your Bible.

[John Weaver] First of all, the first Corinthians chapter nine. First Corinthians chapter nine. Because I'm going to give you an illustration of it. The first reason why we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberty is for the furtherance of the gospel. for the furtherance of the gospel. There are some times that you may have liberty to do something. It just may not be expedient, may not be best for you at that particular time. In 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 5, look what the Apostle Paul asked.

[John Weaver] Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? Let me ask you a question. Did not Paul have the absolute right to get married if he wanted to get married? That's what he's saying there. Do we not have the ability to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles and of the brethren and the Lord, and especially Cephas, that's Peter. So when they say Peter was the first pope, well, Peter had a wife. And Paul specifically says he had a wife, and there's an instance in the Bible where our Lord healed Peter's wife's mother. Why did Paul not have a wife?

[John Weaver] Let me put it to you very bluntly, she'd probably slow him down. And Paul said, well, for the furtherance of the gospel and all I've got to do, I just don't want to be tied down. And there is a biblical teaching in First Corinthians chapter seven on three reasons why you should not marry and three reasons why you should marry.

[John Weaver] Now, I'm going to be honest, single people have several advantages over married people, but married people also have several advantages over single people, you see. But the Apostle Paul said, I have a right to get married if I want to, but for the firmness of the gospel, I'm not going to do that. I want to continue my missionary journeys and my hectic schedule, and I just don't have time for a wife right now. But he had the right. So you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberty for the furtherance of the gospel.

[John Weaver] OK, the second reason, if you look in your Bibles to Matthew chapter five. Matthew chapter five, the second reason you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberties is for personal holiness. Look in Matthew chapter five and verse 30 at what our Lord said, Matthew five, Verse 30, and you could see the context. And if thy right hand offend thee, what, cut it off and cast it from thee, for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body should be cast into hell. Now, one of the next reasons that we can forego the lawful exercise of our liberty is for personal holiness. Our Lord said, if something offends you, Don't mess with it. Get away from it. Cut it off. Let me let me tell you something. We are.

[John Weaver] We're so prone to follow our feelings. And our lust and our desires. But if I have a problem with lust and covetousness. Let me ask you a question. Do I need to forego the lawful exercise of my liberty of visiting the beach in the summer? I'd say yes, wouldn't you? If I've got that problem. But now somebody else may not have that problem. You see what I'm saying? If I have...

[John Weaver] Let me do something that will really apply to women. If I have an exceeding desire for chocolate, You know, Alice wants one of these shirts just to give me the chocolate and nobody gets hurt, you know. But if I know that I've got a real propensity for that, what should I do? I want not to be visiting chocolate stores on a regular basis. It kind of reminds me of Stonewall Jackson.

[John Weaver] He had been out on a reconnaissance mission. And he came back so chilled and was shaking from the cold and the damp that his doctor insisted, insisted that he take a swallow of whiskey. And when Stonewall took that swallow, he made a face and the doctor said, Oh, I'm so sorry, General Jackson. Is it that bad? Jackson says, no, no, it's that good. I've always liked it.

[John Weaver] That's why I never touch it. You see what I'm saying? He knew he liked it, so he just stayed away from it. Not that it was unlawful. But for the exercise of personal holiness, you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberty. Further to the gospel, personal holiness, and thirdly, for the benefit of the weaker brother. By the way, before I give you this, let me give you a verse what the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6 verse 12.

[John Weaver] Listen to what he said. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought into the power of any. Now listen to what he said, all things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient.

[John Weaver] Now the word expedient is the Greek word sumthera, which means profitable or to be good. He said all things are lawful for me, but not all things are necessarily profitable for me. And I'm not going to be brought under the power of any.

[John Weaver] Now, the truth of the matter is, folks, I like ice cream. I don't care what flavor it is. I just like it. And I enjoy eating it occasionally. And my wife can tell you if it's in the refrigerator, I'll eat it. If it's not there, I won't eat it. So consequently, she doesn't buy it that much. But although there's nothing wrong with eating ice cream occasionally, there would be something wrong with sitting down and eating four or five quarts of it at one time.

[John Weaver] This is what he's saying. All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. I'm not going to do it, and I'm not going to be brought under the power of any. So we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberty for the furtherance of the gospel, for personal holiness, and thirdly, for the benefit of the weaker brother. Now, I'm not going to delve in this today, because I'm going to deal with this when I come up to the objections.

[John Weaver] But you will find this teaching in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans chapter 14. And let me point out the fact that we cannot encourage anyone to do what we do without our knowledge, who is a weaker brother. If we encourage him to do what we're doing without our knowledge, it would be sin. So, we have to always consider a weaker brother, and I'll deal with that a little bit later.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just say that it should be clearly understood that while the Bible does not condemn the proper use of wine or alcohol, There is no constraint and there is no command that one must drink socially or regularly. In the proper setting, one may have the liberty to partake in a biblical manner. At the same time, others would have the liberty to abstain in the proper manner.

[John Weaver] Now, let me give you one other general principle, and that is this. There is a difference. There is a difference between the social and the ceremonial or religious or ecclesiastical use of wine. Let me explain it like this. The social use of wine or alcohol is in the area of Christian liberty. The ceremonial or religious or ecclesiastical use of wine is by command an example. Let me show you.

[John Weaver] Look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy 14. Deuteronomy 14. Without me going into great detail, you remember that I taught you in times past when I dealt with the subject of biblical wealth, that there were three tithes in Scripture. There was the Levitical tithe, the 10 percent that went to the teaching Levite. There was the poor tithe, which was 10% taken every third year or three and a third per year, which went to the poor. And then there was a another 10% tithe, which was a tithe of rejoicing or the festival tithe. And that tithe went to the family. And the family used that money for themselves as kind of a Christian vacation when they went to Jerusalem for those feasts. When you're reading in Deuteronomy 14, the passage that I'm dealing with, it is now dealing with the tithe of rejoicing. OK, I want you to look what he says. Let's begin reading with verse 22. This is the tithe of rejoicing, Deuteronomy 14, verse 22. thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed that the field bringeth forth year by year, and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place which he shalt choose to place his name there, which was Jerusalem, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and

[John Weaver] the firstlings of thy herds, and of the flocks that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always." Now, God says you're going to take this Christian vacation. You're going to come to these feasts. Why? That you may learn to fear the Lord thy God always.

[John Weaver] Now, look at verse 24. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou shalt not be able to carry it. You can't drive your oxen too far and you can't carry a lot of heavy stuff. Or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. Now look, and thou shalt bestow that money, help me out now, for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever thy soul desireth. And thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice thou in thine household." Now, let me show you what he's saying in verse 26. And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. If you want a T-bone steak, have it, says God.

[John Weaver] If you want a fresh leg of lamb, you may have that. If you want a bottle of wine, you may have that. If you want strong You may have that. Now, does that mean that you may get drunk? No. Does that mean that you may eat those foods that were forbidden by God? No. Does that mean that you can sin and rebel? No. And don't you know what he said?

[John Weaver] And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever. And in other words, you may eat a T-bone steak if you want it, but that you may not. You may not want it. You may drink wine if you want it, but then you may not. You may not want it. You may have yagyen, you may have strong drink, but then you may not want it either. See, this is in the realm of. Freedom of liberty.

[John Weaver] They were free to have it, not abuse it, but they were also free not to have it. This would be what we would call a social use, or a ceremonial use in one sense of the word. At least, not a ceremonial, but just a social use of it at these feasts.

[John Weaver] Now I want you to turn to another passage. Let's begin in Exodus 29, and we're going to look at several passages. And here you have the ceremonial, religious, or ecclesiastical use of wine. By the way, I can do this if you need me to do it. But please don't try to come up with the usage of the Hebrew and the Greek words, because I've done a study on Yahyan, Kemar, Enos, Kirosh.

[John Weaver] I know what they mean and I can show you what they mean. But I mean, there's no reason to do that unless you just want it done. I can show you verse after verse where T. Ross is used, where Enos is used, etc. But I'm just showing you the word here is wine. Look in your Bibles, Exodus 29, beginning there, verse 38, just so that you can see this is what God commands. Now look, Exodus 29, verse 38.

[John Weaver] Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar. So God's demanding this now, this is to be offered upon the altar. Two lambs of the first year, day by day, continually. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, the other lamb shalt thou offer even. And the one lamb, a tenth deal of flour, mingled with the fourth part of a hint of beaten oil, and the fourth part of a hint of wine for a drink offering. What?

[John Weaver] What did I just read? God said, I want a fourth part of a hen of wine for a drink offering in this daily offering. Look in your Bibles to Leviticus 23, verse 13. Leviticus 23, verse 13. Leviticus 23, verse 13.

[John Weaver] God says, and the meat or the meal offering thereof shall be two-tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savor, and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of the hen. OK, go to Numbers 15 and verse 5. I want to ask you a question, so look at these passages with me very carefully. Number 15, note if you would please, verse 5. Number 15, verse 5. He talks about the offering that's to be offered to the Lord, verse 4, and here's what it should contain. And the fourth part of a hint of wine for a drink offering shall thou prepare with a burnt offering or sacrifice for one lamb. Now look in verse 10 of the same chapter. And thou shalt bring for a drink offering a half a hen of wine for an offering made by fire of a sweet savor unto the Lord." Now he's got a half a hen. Now look in your Bibles to 1 Chronicles 9 and verse 29.

[John Weaver] 1 Chronicles 9 and verse 29. 1 Chronicles 9.

[John Weaver] Some of them also were appointed to oversee the vessels, talking about the Levites. Some of them also were appointed to oversee the vessels, and all the instruments of the sanctuary, and the fine flour, and the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices.

[John Weaver] Now, let me ask you a question. Let's go back to the Old Testament. You and I are priests. God says you're going to offer me one lamb in the morning. You have to offer a fourth part of beaten oil with two-tenth deals of flour and a quarter hint of wine. And I look at you and I say, I think we'll use grape juice. What do you think? Yeah, I think we are. Let's substitute it. If we substituted. Would it have been accepted by God? Well, of course not. In other words, the point I'm trying to make is this when God demanded wine, the priests did not have the liberty to make a substitution. Now, all I'm trying to point out is this, if God used wine in his offerings, if wine was used in the Passover and it was. And if wine initially was instituted in the Lord's Supper and it was. Do we have the right to change it to grape juice?

[John Weaver] And the answer is no. Now, let me make some applications, the first one is this, and I hope you hope this makes you think. And I will try to answer this for you if I do not answer it in my last message, somebody asked me the question and I'll answer it. But you must ask yourself. If wine is committed in the Bible. And the church for centuries used wine in the Lord's Supper, how did it get changed to grape juice? I'll answer that one for you, but that's an interesting question. And by the way, the change to grape juice was relatively of recent origin.

[John Weaver] My next application is this. As we begin to look at the use of wine in the Bible, you've got to ask yourself this. What is your attitude? What is my attitude? Is it one of rebellion? Is it one of defiance, unbelief? Or is it one of submission to scripture? As I said earlier, we may not always understand, we may not always agree, but we must always submit to the word of God. And trust God for further understanding, I urge you.

[John Weaver] Especially in the coming week to keep an open mind. As we look at the scriptures and see the condemnation. And the commendation of wine in the Bible. so that we can see its proper use and its abuse. And we'll know exactly, I believe, what God would have us to use in the elements and how He would have us to live our lives and at the same time be honoring and glorifying to Him. Let's pray. Father, we are thankful for Jesus Christ this day and we are thankful for the Word of God. We're thankful, Lord, that your word is clear, concise and precise. And I pray that you'd give us grace to bow to it, believe it and apply it. In the name of Jesus Christ, we ask and pray, Amen.

The Lord's Supper - Part 7

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	710693344
Subject	Apologetics
Course	Truth and the Interpretation of Scripture
Genre	Sermon
Date	2006-03-12
Dictation Name
Book	Book 041: The Lord's Supper — Chapter 7
Source Timed Segments	96

Formatted Transcript

Opening

The message you are about to hear was produced by Dominion Ministry. If you would like to support this ministry by becoming a sermon partner or obtain additional high-resolution CDs, DVDs, or MP3s featuring the teaching of Pastor John Weaver, please visit the Dominion Ministry website at www.dominion.org. www.dominionministry.com. This ministry is completely supported by donations and it is through those donations that we are able to provide sermons for sermonaudio.com. Please visit our website at www.dominionministry.com to subscribe or make your donation today. Thank you. Let's open our Bibles today to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And let's begin reading there with verse 20, and we're not going to read a lot today just simply because I've got a lot of information for you. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 20,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 11:20-29

"When you come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have you not houses to eat and drink in, or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

Review of Previous Studies

Weaver reviews the series so far: the Lord's Supper as a sovereign, gospel ordinance; its names, significance, partakers; Paul's reproof of Corinthian divisions; and the time and servers of the Supper.

Now let me just stop there for today and take just a few moments to review and try to tie things together so you can see the progress that we've made in this. Remember I told you that the Lord's Supper is indeed an ordinance. It's a sovereign ordinance since God himself instituted it. It's a gospel ordinance since it gives us the realities of the gospel. We've looked at the names of the Lord's Supper in the Bible. We've looked at the significance of the Lord's Supper in the Bible and showed it to you under the various meals that are represented thereof. We've seen the partakers of the Lord's Supper, those who are qualified to partake. We've also looked at the reproof that the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Church because of all the divisions, which resulted even in the division in the Lord's Supper.

There were personal divisions, there were pastoral divisions, there were judicial divisions, intellectual, spiritual, social, and cultural divisions. Let me just say it very plainly, Corinth was indeed a problem church. And so the Apostle Paul not only had to write them two letters, but he also had to personally visit them as well. Now, the last time we studied here, we looked at the time and the servers of the Lord's Supper. And I believe the key phrase as to the time is, "as often as you do it." He said, "this do in remembrance of me." And in the servers we looked at, I pointed out that traditionally deacons have always done it, but the Bible does not require that. But rather, I believe a godly man should be used to help in that as well. Now, if you've got a deacon who is a godly man, wonderful. But there have been plenty of deacons I know that are ungodly men, so God requires, I believe, godliness involved in it. Now, today we're going to begin our study on the elements that are involved in the Lord's Supper.

Introduction to the Elements

Weaver introduces the topic of the elements used by Christ, the historic church, and whether substitution matters.

So, let me ask this question. Which elements, or what elements, were used by Jesus Christ? What were the elements that our Lord used when he first initiated and instituted the supper? Let me ask you another question. I want you to think about this. What were the elements that the Christian church has used throughout the centuries? Here's another question. Does it matter whether or not we use the right elements? Does it matter whether or not we make substitution for the elements?

Now, in order to answer some of these questions, I want to share with you a number of things today, but I want you to remember, please, that the Lord's Supper was instituted in the context of the Passover. Now, that does not mean that it is identical with the Passover. Certainly it is not. It's a totally separate institution. But if you were to read Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, you would find that this supper was instituted at the end of the Passover meal. So when you begin to understand that, then at least it should give you a simple understanding as to, in all probability, what the elements were that our Lord used when he instituted the Lord's Supper. So let's begin with the elements and the first one I'm going to deal with is bread.

The Bread: Unleavened

Weaver argues from the Passover context and the Greek word artos that the bread was unleavened, symbolizing Christ's sinlessness, and that substitution would spoil the type and arrogate authority.

The Bible says very plainly that he took bread and he broke it. And he gave to them and said, "Take, this is my body, which is broken for you." Now, the word for bread is the Greek word artos, which is translated in our Bibles as bread, loaf or showbread. Now, the word artos refers to food that is composed of flour mixed with water and baked. It also is used of the bread that Israelites used in the form of an oblong or a round cake that could be cut or broken in pieces. It was also, the word is also used of the loaves that were consecrated by our Lord. It is also used of the word used at the love feast and at the Lord's supper.

Now the Bible tells us that Jesus took bread. Where did he get the bread? And the answer would have to be from the table on which they had been eating. So that means then when he took the bread, the Passover bread was what? Unleavened. So very obviously, the bread then has to be unleavened bread.

Now, if you look in your Bibles, hold 1 Corinthians 11, but look in your Bibles to Matthew 26 and verse 26. Let me just show you. Undoubtedly, he took the bread from the Passover table. In Matthew 26 and verse 26, the Word of God says this,

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:26

"And as they were eating,"

what meal were they eating? The Passover meal.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:26

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and break it and gave to the disciples and said, Take, eat. This is my body."

Now,

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:26

"as they were eating,"

who is the "they"? Evidently refers to the disciples, because when you look back in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians 11 now and verse 25, the Apostle Paul tells us, "After the same manner also he," Christ, "took the cup when he had supped." So Christ evidently had finished his meal. The disciples may have still been eating, but since he finished his meal then, he took the bread and, of course, he instituted then the Lord's Supper. So the bread then was taken from the Passover table, which meant it was unleavened bread.

Now, if you look in Matthew 26 and verse 17, if you would. Matthew 26, verse 17.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:17

Now, the first day of the feast of

what? Unleavened bread. What is that? That's the Passover. So very obviously then the bread was unleavened. If you would go back in your Bibles to Exodus chapter 12, and begin reading there with verse 8. We won't read the entire passage, but Exodus chapter 12 and verse 8. Here is the institution of the Passover. "And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, with the purtenance thereof. And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning you shall burn with fire."

"And thus shall you eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand. You shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover." And if you'll skip down to verse 14, "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial. And you shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread." And he goes on and he talks about how that there is to be no leaven found in the house. So, the bread of the Passover was unleavened, our Lord took the bread, and He very clearly then used it to institute the Lord's Supper. Now, you remember in 1 Corinthians 5 and verse 7, the Bible tells us that even Jesus Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us. So there should be no discussion, there should be no misunderstanding concerning the bread. It was, it should be, it must be unleavened bread. Now, you and I would not even think of changing the unleavened bread. We would not even consider replacing it with cookies or doughnuts.

Why would we not do that? You would say, well, first of all, it would spoil the type because Jesus Christ—and oftentimes, leaven in the Bible is a symbol of sin. You remember that? Why was it required to be unleavened? Because Jesus Christ is the sinless Son of God. And when you use leaven, you're mixing evil with it then. And that's why we will not substitute doughnuts and cookies and light bread and things like that. Because it would not only spoil the picture and the emblem and the type, but we would also be arrogating to ourself authority that we do not have. Jesus Christ is the one who instituted the Lord's Supper, and he instituted it with unleavened bread. So very clearly then, no one has the authority and no one has the right to change that element, nor any of the elements.

The Liquid: Wine, Not Grape Juice

Weaver asserts the liquid was wine, explaining 'fruit of the vine' in Luke 22 as a metonymy where the substance (grapes) is put for the thing produced (wine). He notes fermentation was unavoidable in that era.

Now, secondly today, I want to deal with the liquid. Ask yourself this question. What was in the cup that our Lord used when he instituted the Lord's Supper? Let me tell you and then listen carefully, because I'm going to begin a message today, which is going to take me two messages to finish. I believe the liquid in our Lord's cup was wine. Pure and simple. Now, I did say wine, W-I-N-E. Now, please listen carefully. Wine is wine. Fermented wine is a redundancy. If it is wine, it is fermented. If it is not fermented, it is not wine. Now, I know that many Christians and many preachers will howl and whine over this point, but please listen to me carefully. Do not challenge me until I finish the next two messages. Then if you want to challenge me, that's fine. But I'm going to show you and I believe prove to you from the Bible that it was indeed real, genuine wine. Now, immediately someone's going to say, "But now, Brother Weaver, I read my Bible."

And if you'll go to Luke 22, there you have the institution of the Lord's Supper. Just like you have it in Matthew 26 and just like you have it in the book of Mark. And boy, when you get to Luke 22, you get blown out of the water because the Bible says very plainly there that it's the fruit of the vine. Well, let's look in our Bibles, Luke chapter 22 and verse 18. Look what our Lord says. Luke 22, verse 18. And remember now, verse 17, let's read verse 17, just so that you can see it's the Lord's Supper in view.

"And 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 shall come." Wow. You say, "Well, there it is, Brother Weaver, fruit of the vine, grape juice, plain and simple." No, not plain and not simple. You've got to understand the figures of speech that are used in the Bible. E. W. Bullinger has a book just about, I guess, three inches thick, just on the figures of speech in the Bible. I'm not going to go over all of these figures of speech, but there are metonymies, ironies, metaphors, synecdoches, hyperboles, allegories, parables, and a host of others. And there are certain things in the Bible you cannot understand unless you understand the figures of speech.

Let me give you two of them. The first one is a hyperbole. Many of you know what a hyperbole is. The Greek word hyper means over, above, and beyond. And balein means to cast or to throw. So what is a hyperbole? It's something that you cast or throw over and above. It is, basically speaking, an exaggeration so that you will understand the greatness or the vastness of something. Let me give you a good illustration of a hyperbole.

Look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy chapter 1 and verse 28. Deuteronomy 1, verse 28. Now you remember how the ten spies brought back an evil report. You remember that? Look what they said. Deuteronomy 1, verse 28.

Scripture Reading — Deuteronomy 1:28

"Whither shall we go up? Our brethren have discouraged our hearts, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover, we have seen the sons of the Anakims there."

Now, let me ask you a question. Did those walls literally reach into heaven? No. That's a hyperbole. They were great walls. They were big walls. They may have been taller than the average city wall, but they did not literally reach up into the heavens. So here is a hyperbole. They've walled up into heaven. No. It's there for you to understand that they were mighty walls, but they certainly did not reach into heaven.

You can find hyperboles all through the Bible. It's a figure of speech. It's just like we said, if I've told you once, I've told you 10,000 times. Have I ever told you anything 10,000 times? No, it's a figure of speech. It's a hyperbole. I've told my wife something maybe 10,000 times, but Jay's pointed her. But you understand what I'm saying. Nobody's told anyone something 10,000 times. It's just a figure of speech. Saying I've told you a lot of times.

Well, what is a metonymy? I'm going to show you this from the Bible. A metonymy. The Greek word meta means with. Onoma is the Greek word for name. The word metonymy means with name or the same as a name. Here's what a metonymy is. Listen carefully and we'll show you several illustrations of it. A metonymy occurs when the matter or the substance of a thing is given for the thing itself.

Let me say that again. A metonymy occurs when the matter or the substance of a thing is given for the thing itself. Let me give you the illustrations. Look in your Bibles, first of all, to the book of Nahum. Nahum chapter 2, one of the minor prophets. Nahum chapter 2. And look at verse 7. Nahum, verse 3 it is. Nahum chapter 2 and verse 3. Nahum chapter 2 and verse 3. Here's the metonymy.

In fact, let me read just verses 1 and 2 just so that you can see the context. "He that dasheth in pieces has come up before thy face. Keep the munition, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily. For the Lord hath turned away the excellency of Jacob as the excellency of Israel. For the emptiers have emptied them out and marred their vine branches."

Now look, "The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet, the chariot shall be with flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken." Now we're discussing a picture of warfare. And here the Bible says the fir trees shall be terribly shaken. Now how horrified would you be if you were in a walled city and you saw some soldiers come up and grab all the fir trees and start trying to shake them. You wouldn't be too afraid, because especially if a fir tree was that big around, they're not going to shake it. What does this mean when he says the fir trees shall be terribly shaken? Lances and spears were made out of fir wood. They're shaking their lances. They're shaking their spears.

So here is a metonymy. Here the matter or the substance of something is put for the thing itself. So since they were made out of fir wood, the fir tree shall be terribly shaken. That's a metonymy. Look in your Bibles, if you would, to the book of Lamentations, right after the book of Jeremiah. Lamentations 3 and verse 7. Lamentations 3 and verse 7. Here's another metonymy. Look what Jeremiah says,

Scripture Reading — Lamentations 3:7

"He hath hedged me about that I cannot get out, he hath made my chain heavy."

Guess what the word heavy is? It's the word brass. He hath made my chain brass. He made my chain brazen. In other words, what he is saying is, when he's made my chain heavy, he's made my bondage hard and cruel and heavy. That's a metonymy. He's made my chains brass. Very obviously, if you're chained and you've got heavy chains on, you're suffering. That's a metonymy. Look in your Bibles to Psalm 132. Psalm 132 and verse 11. Here's a metonymy. Psalm 132, verse 11. Look what the Scripture says, "The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."

Wait a minute. What's the fruit of his body? It's a child. It's a male heir, it's a descendant. So when he says

Scripture Reading — Psalm 132:11

"of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne,"

the matter or the substance is put for the thing itself. He's talking about a child. He's talking about a male descendant. That's the metonymy. Look in Psalm 127 in verse three, since you're there, Psalm 127, verse three. Here's another metonymy. "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." Well, what's the fruit of the womb?

Is it a puppet, a baby doll? No, it's a baby. The fruit of the womb is his reward. So here the substance or the matter of something is put for the thing itself.

Now, look in your Bibles to Psalm 49 and verse 11. Psalm, not Psalm 49, I'm sorry, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Genesis 49 and verse 11.

Here's another one, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Look what the Bible says.

Scripture Reading — Genesis 49:11-12

"Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes."

Now, wait a minute. If he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes, are not his garments and his clothes the same thing? Well, of course. Well, what's the blood of grapes? It's wine. What is wine? It's the blood of grapes. It's the blood of grapes. If you look in verse 12 to show you he means wine,

Scripture Reading — Genesis 49:11-12

"His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk."

So it's a metonymy. And when our Lord said in Luke 22 that he would no longer drink of the fruit of the vine, that is metonymy. That is where the substance or the matter is put for the thing itself. The fruit of the vine is wine. It's not grape juice.

I'm not going to get into this now, but there's no way in the world back in those days you could prevent grape juice from fermenting. To prevent it, you have to have refrigeration. They didn't have refrigeration. So the fruit of the vine was wine.

The Analogy of Faith and Sola Scriptura

Weaver stresses interpreting Scripture by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, and that the Bible alone is the authority for faith and practice, citing Luther and the Westminster Confession.

Now, as we dig our way through this subject, we must remember one thing, that our interpretation of the scripture must conform to the analogy of faith. What do I mean by that? I mean this. We cannot take one passage like Luke 22, the fruit of the vine, and say, well, that means grape juice, when very obviously in other passages in the Bible, it does not mean grape juice. In other words, we have to consider each passage in the analogy of faith in the general teaching of the entirety of the Word of God.

Now, the Bible gives us this principle in 1 Corinthians 2 and verse 13, when God says,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 2:13

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

So we compare Scripture with Scripture until we find out what the analogy of faith really is. So we cannot maintain that the fruit of the vine in Luke 22 is grape juice when other passages of the Bible say no, it's not grape juice, it is wine. First of all, let me say this, the issue of using wine in the Lord's Supper will do at least three things for us, I hope, I pray. What are the three things will this issue do for us? First, and hopefully, it will make us search the scriptures for ourselves.

You remember what the Apostle Paul taught in Acts chapter 17? And then he commended those Bereans. He said, "But these were more noble than those in Thessalonica." Why? "In that they searched the word of God daily, whether these things were so or not." So first, it ought to make us search the scripture and compare scripture with scripture for ourselves. Secondly, it will test our fidelity to scripture. You know what we've said all along? We've said Sola Scriptura. That is, the scriptures alone are our sole authority for faith and practice.

Now, let me ask you a question, don't you think about this? Are the scriptures in reality your sole authority for faith and practice, or do you include, well, that's the way I was raised, or this is what I've always believed? You follow me? It will test our fidelity to Scripture. Thirdly, it will test our submission to Scripture. Will we bow to the word of God? Or will we fall back upon what we've always been taught, what we've always believed and the way we've been raised and the way we've always done it? You follow me? There's a big difference between submission to the word of God and tradition. You see, Isaiah 8 in verse 20 says this: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Now, I want to give you a quote because I can tell you this firsthand. Whenever we hear something new and I've already mentioned this and especially in reference to those two messages resisting the truth. But whenever we hear something new or different, we automatically have a tendency to shut our minds and say that cannot possibly be true. But can you imagine the difficulty that Martin Luther and those men who followed him had in their day, coming out of a thousand years of darkness, not having the Word of God read, but believing the church and the church fathers. I want you to listen to what Martin Luther said. If you have difficulty in bowing to scripture, consider these words. Martin Luther writes, "No one will believe how great an ordeal it is and how severe a shock when a person first realizes that he must believe and teach contrary to the fathers, especially when he sees that so many excellent, intelligent, and learned men, yes, the best of them, taught thus, holy men like

Saints Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. I too have often experienced this shock. But in spite of this, that one man, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, must have greater weight with me than all the holiest people on earth put together. When we think of the false doctrine of priestly celibacy, for example, we see how true it is that virtually the whole visible church, including the best people in it, can fall under the spell of error. What then, asks Luther, shall we condemn these men? No, I do not intend to condemn Benedict and others, he says, but I do propose to take their books and carry them to Christ and his word as a criterion for comparison. If their doctrine agrees with the gospel, I shall accept it. If not, I shall say, you may be a holy man, but you will never subject me to your rule, for it is a human Bible.

Therefore, let the devil adopt it. I do not want it. Strong words. But they're true words. Luther went on to say this should have been our policy long ago. How different the sad history of the church would have been if we had followed this course. And what did he say? He said, all of these learned, godly, holy men, I'm not going to just take what they say, I'm going to take what they say and compare it to the word of God. If what they say agrees with the Word of God, fine. I'll bow to it. If it doesn't agree with the Word of God, I'll refuse it. Let the devil have it. It's a human dogma.

You see, folks, the whole Reformation really and truly turned and hinged on this one principle, sola scriptura. The word of God alone is to be our sole authority for faith and practice. Listen, listen to what the Westminster Confession of Faith says. Here it is. "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined and whose sentence we are to rest can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." Period. Does it matter how holy? Does it matter how ancient? Everything is to be tried by the Scriptures. The Scriptures alone are to be our sole authority for faith and practice.

Proper Attitude Toward Scripture

Weaver commends submission to Scripture even when we don't understand, illustrated by Lester Roloff's response to election, and warns against shutting our minds to new truth.

And let me tell you something. Whatever the Scriptures teach us, we must believe it and submit to it, whether we understand it or not, or whether we agree with it or not. You know, many of you heard old Lester Roloff when he was alive. I love that man. Lester Roloff was not a theologian. He was not a scholar. But he could warm your heart like no one else could.

And I loved to hear him sing, and he couldn't sing. But his heart was so full of the love of the Lord. But I heard him on the radio one time, and he was dealing with Ephesians 1, verse 4, where it says that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Well, I knew Lester Roloff did not understand anything about the doctrine of election. But, you know, I thought, well, I'm going to listen to him. I'm going to just see what he has to say. And when he got to Ephesians 1 in verse 4, Lester Roloff said this. "Now, the Bible says we were chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world."

He said, "Now, folks, I can't explain it. My mind's not deep enough to understand it, but I believe it and I bow to it," and then he went right on. You know, I thought, isn't that a wonderful, gracious attitude? He may not have been able to comprehend the doctrine himself, but if the Scripture said that he was going to bow to it, he wasn't going to fight it. Would it be wonderful if all of God's people refuse to fight against the word of God and just learn to bow to it.

Now, the reason I said it's going to take me two more weeks to finish this message, because next week I want to bring a message which I have entitled "Wine, Its Condemnation and Its Commendation." You're going to find that wine is both condemned and commended in scripture. And then the next message will be answering questions and dealing with objections. So I want you to understand that we're going to try to be honest with scripture and we're going to look at both the negative and the positive concerning the usage of wine, especially in the Lord's Supper.

General Principles on Wine Use

Weaver lays out principles: teaching wine in the Supper is not advocating social drinking; children must obey parents; moderation is taught; social use is a liberty, not a command; and there is a difference between religious and social use.

Now, today, what I want to do is just lay down a number of general principles in order to begin the study. And let me just tell you, these general principles need to be remembered. OK, here we go. First. Listen carefully. When I teach that the liquid in the Lord's Supper should be wine, because that's what our Lord used, I am not advocating an all-out wine or alcohol drinking spree. Do you understand that? It is not my intention, purpose, or aim to encourage anyone to throw all caution to the wind and engage in the use of alcohol.

That is not my intent whatsoever. We shall see from the Scripture that the same Scripture that commends the use of wine in certain situations also condemns the abuse of wine in every situation. We must understand that there is a proper use of alcohol and there is a misuse of alcohol. In fact, we must understand that that is true with practically everything in our life. There is the proper use and there is the abuse. And I understand that when I teach this, there may be some who will wrest the teaching to their own destruction. However, that does not make the teaching untrue nor the doctrine wrong. We must teach the truth and we must preach pure doctrine, even if some do abuse it and misuse it and wrest it to their own destruction. Why do we continue to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do not some abuse it? Yes. Do not some misuse it? Yes.

Do not many refuse to believe it? Yes. But it's still true. It is still accurate. You see, it is my responsibility to teach the truth. And it's your responsibility to use the truth correctly. So please understand that the perversion and misuse of any doctrine does not nullify its veracity, that is, its truthfulness and its scripturalness. For instance, I could ask you, are fornication and adultery rampant in our world today? Well, of course. What is fornication and adultery? It is a misuse and abuse of the sanctity of sex. Just because there are fornicators and just because there are adulterers does not nullify the sanctity of sex in marriage. You follow me? Are there thieves in this world today? Yes. Are there robbers? Well, just because there are thieves and robbers does not nullify the right of private property. I can still own things and still possess things just because there's someone out there trying to steal from me.

I mean, come on, let's be honest. You don't throw out the doctrine just because some abuse it and misuse it. Are there rebellious children in this world today? Well, of course there are. Oh, does that mean then we should quit teaching children, "obey your parents in the Lord for this is right, honor thy father and thy mother for this is the first commandment with promise"? No. It means that teaching needs to be taught even more. Heresies and perversions of any doctrine do not mean that the doctrine should not be taught, rather it emphasizes the need for the truth to be taught even more.

So please do not understand, or please understand, I should say, that I am not advocating or saying that an unbridled and unwise use of wine is in any way pleasing to God. It is not. However, I am saying that the liquid in the cup should be wine, and as I shall show you before I close today, there is a difference between the religious use of wine and the social use of wine. So, my first general principle is this. Just because I am saying that the liquid in the Lord's Supper should be wine does not mean that I am advocating that everybody throw all caution to the wind and go out and buy 16 bottles of wine. I'm not saying that at all. OK, secondly, and I especially want to warn and admonish our older children and teenagers. Listen carefully what I'm about to say. You may understand the proper use of wine and the proper use of alcohol, and you may not abuse it or you may not misuse it, however, that does not mean that you may use it without the consent and knowledge and approval of your parents.

I don't care how old you are. I don't care if you are 21. If you are living at home, you are under the authority of your parents. And children are commanded to be under authority. Even teenagers. Even older teenagers. So although there may not be anything wrong biblically with a glass of wine or drinking a glass of wine, it would be wrong if you did it without the knowledge and consent of your parents, because then you would be in rebellion against them. And the Bible says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."

And "honor thy father and thy mother." So the act of drinking a glass of wine is not sinful in itself. I understand that. But if you act without the consent and knowledge and approval of your parents, it is rebellion. And it is sin. So I'm just warning you, just because you know the truth about something does not mean that you have the right to use it if you are under the authority of your parents. OK? You got that?

Write that down in black and white in your notebooks and in your minds and in your hearts. OK, thirdly. The Bible does teach moderation in all things, the Bible says in Philippians four and verse five,

Scripture Reading — Philippians 4:5

"Let your moderation be known unto all men."

Now, since the Bible teaches moderation in all things, that would certainly include the use of alcohol. Listen to me carefully. Since the Bible does say,

Scripture Reading — Philippians 4:5

"Let your moderation be known unto all men,"

and that would include the use of alcohol, that does not mean that we have to drink alcohol or that we must drink alcohol on social or regular occasions. You've heard me say this repeatedly. I've never had a beer in my entire life. I made that statement to one individual and they said, "Well, it's about time you had one." I said, "No, I've lived 61 years without it. I can live 61 more without it." I have no desire for it. I mean, it's just that simple.

Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. The only occasion that I would normally have any alcohol is either ecclesiastically or medicinally, and those are proper uses for it, according to the Bible. Although it is not a sin to use alcohol, as it is commended in scripture, that does not mean that we must use it or have to use it on every occasion or on any occasion other than the Lord's Supper. I've been around weddings. I've been in other places where they serve wine. And I usually would never take a glass. In fact, if they're serving it, I usually would not even have a glass of tea, lest someone think I was drinking it. I just don't want to do it.

Now, listen to me carefully. The social and the occasional use of wine or alcohol falls into the area of Christian liberty. And when I say that, I mean this. We may be free to use it, but that does not mean that we have to use it. If Ed is having a glass of wine and he can do it without becoming drunk or without abusing it, fine. He's free to have a glass of wine, but I am also free not to have a glass of wine. You follow me? Just because he exercises his liberty in that area does not mean that I have to exercise my liberty in that area.

Now, so there are several reasons given in the Bible whereby we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberties. I'm going to give you these. Now, especially one of them I'm going to enlarge upon when I start dealing with objections and answers. But I want to just give them to you today. Here are three reasons given in scripture whereby we may normally forego the lawful exercise of our liberties. Look in your Bible. First of all, the first Corinthians chapter nine. First Corinthians chapter nine. Because I'm going to give you an illustration of it. The first reason why we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberty is for the furtherance of the gospel. For the furtherance of the gospel. There are some times that you may have liberty to do something. It just may not be expedient, may not be best for you at that particular time. In 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 5, look what the Apostle Paul asked.

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?" Let me ask you a question. Did not Paul have the absolute right to get married if he wanted to get married? That's what he's saying there. Do we not have the ability to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles and of the brethren and the Lord, and especially Cephas, that's Peter. So when they say Peter was the first pope, well, Peter had a wife. And Paul specifically says he had a wife, and there's an instance in the Bible where our Lord healed Peter's wife's mother. Why did Paul not have a wife?

Let me put it to you very bluntly, she'd probably slow him down. And Paul said, well, for the furtherance of the gospel and all I've got to do, I just don't want to be tied down. And there is a biblical teaching in First Corinthians chapter seven on three reasons why you should not marry and three reasons why you should marry. Now, I'm going to be honest, single people have several advantages over married people, but married people also have several advantages over single people, you see. But the Apostle Paul said, I have a right to get married if I want to, but for the furtherance of the gospel, I'm not going to do that. I want to continue my missionary journeys and my hectic schedule, and I just don't have time for a wife right now. But he had the right. So you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberty for the furtherance of the gospel.

OK, the second reason, if you look in your Bibles to Matthew chapter five. Matthew chapter five, the second reason you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberties is for personal holiness. Look in Matthew chapter five and verse 30 at what our Lord said, Matthew five, verse 30, and you could see the context.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 5:30

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Now, one of the next reasons that we can forego the lawful exercise of our liberty is for personal holiness. Our Lord said, if something offends you, don't mess with it. Get away from it. Cut it off. Let me let me tell you something. We are.

We're so prone to follow our feelings. And our lust and our desires. But if I have a problem with lust and covetousness. Let me ask you a question. Do I need to forego the lawful exercise of my liberty of visiting the beach in the summer? I'd say yes, wouldn't you? If I've got that problem. But now somebody else may not have that problem. You see what I'm saying? If I have...

Let me do something that will really apply to women. If I have an exceeding desire for chocolate, you know, Alice wants one of these shirts just to give me the chocolate and nobody gets hurt, you know. But if I know that I've got a real propensity for that, what should I do? I want not to be visiting chocolate stores on a regular basis. It kind of reminds me of Stonewall Jackson. He had been out on a reconnaissance mission. And he came back so chilled and was shaking from the cold and the damp that his doctor insisted, insisted that he take a swallow of whiskey. And when Stonewall took that swallow, he made a face and the doctor said, "Oh, I'm so sorry, General Jackson. Is it that bad?" Jackson says, "No, no, it's that good. I've always liked it."

That's why I never touch it. You see what I'm saying? He knew he liked it, so he just stayed away from it. Not that it was unlawful. But for the exercise of personal holiness, you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberty. Furtherance of the gospel, personal holiness, and thirdly, for the benefit of the weaker brother. By the way, before I give you this, let me give you a verse what the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6 verse 12.

Listen to what he said. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Now listen to what he said, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient." Now the word expedient is the Greek word sumphero, which means profitable or to be good. He said all things are lawful for me, but not all things are necessarily profitable for me. And I'm not going to be brought under the power of any.

Now, the truth of the matter is, folks, I like ice cream. I don't care what flavor it is. I just like it. And I enjoy eating it occasionally. And my wife can tell you if it's in the refrigerator, I'll eat it. If it's not there, I won't eat it. So consequently, she doesn't buy it that much. But although there's nothing wrong with eating ice cream occasionally, there would be something wrong with sitting down and eating four or five quarts of it at one time.

This is what he's saying. All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. I'm not going to do it, and I'm not going to be brought under the power of any. So we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberty for the furtherance of the gospel, for personal holiness, and thirdly, for the benefit of the weaker brother. Now, I'm not going to delve in this today, because I'm going to deal with this when I come up to the objections.

But you will find this teaching in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans chapter 14. And let me point out the fact that we cannot encourage anyone to do what we do without our knowledge, who is a weaker brother. If we encourage him to do what we're doing without our knowledge, it would be sin. So, we have to always consider a weaker brother, and I'll deal with that a little bit later.

Now, let me just say that it should be clearly understood that while the Bible does not condemn the proper use of wine or alcohol, there is no constraint and there is no command that one must drink socially or regularly. In the proper setting, one may have the liberty to partake in a biblical manner. At the same time, others would have the liberty to abstain in the proper manner. Now, let me give you one other general principle, and that is this. There is a difference. There is a difference between the social and the ceremonial or religious or ecclesiastical use of wine. Let me explain it like this. The social use of wine or alcohol is in the area of Christian liberty. The ceremonial or religious or ecclesiastical use of wine is by command and example. Let me show you.

Religious vs. Social Use of Wine

Weaver distinguishes the commanded ceremonial use of wine in Old Testament offerings from the optional social use in Deuteronomy 14, arguing that substitution in commanded religious contexts is not permitted.

Look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy 14. Deuteronomy 14. Without me going into great detail, you remember that I taught you in times past when I dealt with the subject of biblical wealth, that there were three tithes in Scripture. There was the Levitical tithe, the 10 percent that went to the teaching Levite. There was the poor tithe, which was 10% taken every third year or three and a third per year, which went to the poor. And then there was another 10% tithe, which was a tithe of rejoicing or the festival tithe. And that tithe went to the family. And the family used that money for themselves as kind of a Christian vacation when they went to Jerusalem for those feasts. When you're reading in Deuteronomy 14, the passage that I'm dealing with, it is now dealing with the tithe of rejoicing. OK, I want you to look what he says. Let's begin reading with verse 22. This is the tithe of rejoicing, Deuteronomy 14, verse 22. "Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed that the field bringeth forth year by year, and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose to place his name there," which was Jerusalem, "the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and

the firstlings of thy herds, and of the flocks that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always." Now, God says you're going to take this Christian vacation. You're going to come to these feasts. Why? That you may learn to fear the Lord thy God always.

Now, look at verse 24. "And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou shalt not be able to carry it"—you can't drive your oxen too far and you can't carry a lot of heavy stuff—"or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose." Now look, "And thou shalt bestow that money," help me out now, "for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever thy soul desireth. And thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine household." Now, let me show you what he's saying in verse 26. "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after." If you want a T-bone steak, have it, says God.

If you want a fresh leg of lamb, you may have that. If you want a bottle of wine, you may have that. If you want strong drink, you may have that. Now, does that mean that you may get drunk? No. Does that mean that you may eat those foods that were forbidden by God? No. Does that mean that you can sin and rebel? No. And don't you know what he said?

"And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever." And in other words, you may eat a T-bone steak if you want it, but then you may not. You may not want it. You may drink wine if you want it, but then you may not. You may not want it. You may have yayin, you may have strong drink, but then you may not want it either. See, this is in the realm of freedom of liberty. They were free to have it, not abuse it, but they were also free not to have it. This would be what we would call a social use, or a ceremonial use in one sense of the word. At least, not a ceremonial, but just a social use of it at these feasts.

Now I want you to turn to another passage. Let's begin in Exodus 29, and we're going to look at several passages. And here you have the ceremonial, religious, or ecclesiastical use of wine. By the way, I can do this if you need me to do it. But please don't try to come up with the usage of the Hebrew and the Greek words, because I've done a study on yayin, chemer, enos, tirosh. I know what they mean and I can show you what they mean. But I mean, there's no reason to do that unless you just want it done. I can show you verse after verse where tirosh is used, where enos is used, etc. But I'm just showing you the word here is wine. Look in your Bibles, Exodus 29, beginning there, verse 38, just so that you can see this is what God commands. Now look, Exodus 29, verse 38.

"Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar." So God's demanding this now, this is to be offered upon the altar. "Two lambs of the first year, day by day, continually. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, the other lamb shalt thou offer at even. And with the one lamb, a tenth deal of flour, mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil, and the fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering." What? What did I just read? God said, I want a fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering in this daily offering. Look in your Bibles to Leviticus 23, verse 13. Leviticus 23, verse 13. Leviticus 23, verse 13.

God says, "And the meat or the meal offering thereof shall be two-tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savor, and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of the hin." OK, go to Numbers 15 and verse 5. I want to ask you a question, so look at these passages with me very carefully. Numbers 15, note if you would please, verse 5. Numbers 15, verse 5. He talks about the offering that's to be offered to the Lord, verse 4, and here's what it should contain. "And the fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering shalt thou prepare with a burnt offering or sacrifice for one lamb." Now look in verse 10 of the same chapter. "And thou shalt bring for a drink offering a half a hin of wine for an offering made by fire of a sweet savor unto the Lord." Now he's got a half a hin. Now look in your Bibles to 1 Chronicles 9 and verse 29.

1 Chronicles 9 and verse 29. 1 Chronicles 9.

"Some of them also were appointed to oversee the vessels," talking about the Levites. "Some of them also were appointed to oversee the vessels, and all the instruments of the sanctuary, and the fine flour, and the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices." Now, let me ask you a question. Let's go back to the Old Testament. You and I are priests. God says you're going to offer me one lamb in the morning. You have to offer a fourth part of beaten oil with two-tenth deals of flour and a quarter hin of wine. And I look at you and I say, "I think we'll use grape juice. What do you think?" "Yeah, I think we are. Let's substitute it." If we substituted, would it have been accepted by God? Well, of course not. In other words, the point I'm trying to make is this: when God demanded wine, the priests did not have the liberty to make a substitution. Now, all I'm trying to point out is this, if God used wine in his offerings, if wine was used in the Passover and it was, and if wine initially was instituted in the Lord's Supper and it was, do we have the right to change it to grape juice?

And the answer is no. Now, let me make some applications, the first one is this, and I hope this makes you think. And I will try to answer this for you if I do not answer it in my last message, somebody asked me the question and I'll answer it. But you must ask yourself: if wine is commended in the Bible, and the church for centuries used wine in the Lord's Supper, how did it get changed to grape juice? I'll answer that one for you, but that's an interesting question. And by the way, the change to grape juice was relatively of recent origin.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Sola Scriptura

Summary: The Bible alone is the supreme authority for faith and practice; all traditions and teachings must be tested by Scripture.

Evidence: Weaver quotes the Westminster Confession and Martin Luther, emphasizing that even holy men's teachings must be compared to the Word of God.

Unleavened Bread as a Type of Christ

Summary: The bread in the Lord's Supper must be unleavened because it pictures the sinless body of Christ, and leaven symbolizes sin.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'leaven in the Bible is a symbol of sin... Jesus Christ is the sinless Son of God. And when you use leaven, you're mixing evil with it.'

Wine as the Biblical Liquid Element

Summary: The liquid Christ used was real fermented wine, not grape juice, as shown by the Passover context and the figure of metonymy in Luke 22.

Evidence: Weaver explains metonymy with examples and says, 'The fruit of the vine is wine. It's not grape juice.'

Distinction Between Religious and Social Use of Wine

Summary: The ceremonial use of wine in worship is commanded and not subject to substitution, while social use is a matter of Christian liberty.

Evidence: Weaver contrasts Deuteronomy 14 (social, optional) with Exodus 29 (commanded drink offering) and argues we cannot change what God commanded.

Submission to Scripture Over Tradition

Summary: Believers must bow to the Word of God even when it challenges long-held beliefs or traditions.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'Will we bow to the word of God? Or will we fall back upon what we've always been taught...?' and cites Luther's struggle against church fathers.

Christian Liberty and Its Limits

Summary: While social drinking may be lawful, believers may forego liberty for the gospel's sake, personal holiness, or the weaker brother.

Evidence: Weaver lists three reasons to forego liberty: furtherance of the gospel (1 Cor 9), personal holiness (Matt 5:30), and benefit of the weaker brother (1 Cor 8, Rom 14).

Key Arguments

The bread must be unleavened

Summary: Because the Lord's Supper was instituted at the end of the Passover meal, the bread Jesus took was the unleavened bread of the Passover, and substituting it would corrupt the type of Christ's sinless body.

Evidence: Weaver cites Matthew 26:26 ('as they were eating') and Exodus 12:8 to show the Passover context, and argues leaven symbolizes sin.

'Fruit of the vine' means wine, not grape juice

Summary: Luke 22:18 uses a metonymy, a figure of speech where the substance (fruit of the vine) is put for the product (wine), as seen in other Scriptures like Genesis 49:11.

Evidence: Weaver defines metonymy and gives examples: 'the fir trees shall be terribly shaken' (Nahum 2:3) meaning spears, and 'the blood of grapes' (Gen 49:11) meaning wine.

Scripture must interpret Scripture

Summary: We cannot isolate one passage (Luke 22) to mean grape juice when other passages clearly refer to wine; we must compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13).

Evidence: Weaver says, 'We cannot maintain that the fruit of the vine in Luke 22 is grape juice when other passages of the Bible say no, it's not grape juice, it is wine.'

No authority to change the elements

Summary: Since Christ instituted the Supper with specific elements, no one has the right to substitute them; doing so arrogates authority and spoils the biblical picture.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'Jesus Christ is the one who instituted the Lord's Supper, and he instituted it with unleavened bread. So very clearly then, no one has the authority... to change that element.'

Religious use of wine is by command, not liberty

Summary: In Old Testament offerings, God commanded wine; priests could not substitute grape juice. Similarly, in the Lord's Supper, the element is prescribed, not optional.

Evidence: Weaver reads Exodus 29:38-40, Leviticus 23:13, Numbers 15:5,10, and asks, 'If God used wine in his offerings... do we have the right to change it to grape juice? And the answer is no.'

Teaching wine in the Supper is not advocating social drinking

Summary: Weaver clarifies that his argument for wine in the Lord's Supper does not mean he endorses unbridled social drinking; the Bible condemns abuse while commending proper use.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'I am not advocating an all-out wine or alcohol drinking spree... the same Scripture that commends the use of wine in certain situations also condemns the abuse of wine in every situation.'

Scripture References

1 Corinthians 11:20-29

Context: Read at the opening to set the context for the study on the Lord's Supper.

Matthew 26:26

Context: Shows Jesus took bread 'as they were eating' the Passover meal, indicating the bread was unleavened.

Matthew 26:17

Context: Identifies the meal as the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, confirming the bread was unleavened.

Exodus 12:8-14

Context: Institution of the Passover, commanding unleavened bread and no leaven in the house.

1 Corinthians 5:7

Context: Christ our Passover sacrificed for us, linking the unleavened bread to Christ's sinlessness.

Luke 22:17-18

Context: Jesus speaks of not drinking 'the fruit of the vine' until the kingdom; Weaver argues this is a metonymy for wine.

Deuteronomy 1:28

Context: Example of hyperbole: 'cities... walled up to heaven' to illustrate figurative language in Scripture.

Nahum 2:3

Context: Example of metonymy: 'the fir trees shall be terribly shaken' meaning spears made of fir wood.

Lamentations 3:7

Context: Example of metonymy: 'he hath made my chain heavy' (brass) meaning heavy bondage.

Psalm 132:11

Context: Example of metonymy: 'fruit of thy body' meaning a descendant.

Psalm 127:3

Context: Example of metonymy: 'fruit of the womb' meaning children.

Genesis 49:11-12

Context: Example of metonymy: 'blood of grapes' meaning wine, supporting 'fruit of the vine' as wine.

1 Corinthians 2:13

Context: Principle of comparing spiritual things with spiritual to find the analogy of faith.

Acts 17:11

Context: The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily; Weaver urges the same attitude.

Isaiah 8:20

Context: To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.

Philippians 4:5

Context: Let your moderation be known unto all men, applied to the use of alcohol.

1 Corinthians 9:5

Context: Paul had the right to marry but forewent it for the gospel; example of foregoing liberty.

Matthew 5:30

Context: If your right hand offends you, cut it off; applied to foregoing liberty for personal holiness.

1 Corinthians 6:12

Context: All things are lawful but not all things are expedient; I will not be brought under the power of any.

Deuteronomy 14:22-26

Context: The festival tithe allowed buying wine or strong drink for rejoicing before the Lord, showing social use as liberty.

Historical References

Martin Luther

Context: Quoted on the shock of realizing one must teach contrary to the church fathers, and his commitment to test all by Scripture.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Context: Quoted on the supreme judge of religious controversies being the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.

Lester Roloff

Context: Mentioned as an example of submission to Scripture on election despite not fully understanding it.

Stonewall Jackson

Context: Anecdote about Jackson refusing whiskey because he liked it too much, illustrating personal holiness.

E. W. Bullinger

Context: Mentioned as author of a book on figures of speech in the Bible, used to introduce metonymy.

Important Quotes

The fruit of the vine is wine. It's not grape juice.

Significance: Succinctly states Weaver's central claim about the liquid element, based on his metonymy argument.

Jesus Christ is the one who instituted the Lord's Supper, and he instituted it with unleavened bread. So very clearly then, no one has the authority and no one has the right to change that element, nor any of the elements.

Significance: Establishes the principle that the elements are not subject to human alteration.

Will we bow to the word of God? Or will we fall back upon what we've always been taught, what we've always believed and the way we've been raised and the way we've always done it?

Significance: Challenges the congregation to examine whether their authority is Scripture or tradition.

I am not advocating an all-out wine or alcohol drinking spree. Do you understand that? It is not my intention, purpose, or aim to encourage anyone to throw all caution to the wind and engage in the use of alcohol.

Significance: Clarifies that teaching wine in the Lord's Supper is not an endorsement of social drinking or abuse.

Discussion Questions

What does the Passover context of the Last Supper tell us about the kind of bread Jesus used, and why is that significant?

Context: Weaver argues the bread was unleavened because it was taken from the Passover table.

How does understanding figures of speech like metonymy affect our interpretation of 'fruit of the vine' in Luke 22:18?

Context: Weaver explains metonymy with several biblical examples to argue it means wine.

What does it mean to interpret Scripture by the 'analogy of faith,' and why is it important in this discussion?

Context: Weaver insists we must compare Scripture with Scripture rather than isolate one verse.

How should we respond when we encounter a biblical teaching that challenges our traditions or long-held beliefs?

Context: Weaver uses Luther and Roloff as examples of submission to Scripture over tradition.

What is the difference between the religious/ceremonial use of wine and the social use of wine, and why does it matter?

Context: Weaver distinguishes commanded religious use from optional social use using Deuteronomy 14 and Exodus 29.

What are some biblical reasons a Christian might choose to forego a lawful liberty, such as drinking wine socially?

Context: Weaver lists furtherance of the gospel, personal holiness, and the weaker brother.

If the church used wine in the Lord's Supper for centuries, how and why did the change to grape juice occur?

Context: Weaver poses this as a question for reflection, noting the change is relatively recent.

Applications

Examine your attitude toward Scripture

Summary: Ask whether your response to biblical teaching is one of rebellion, defiance, or submission, and commit to bowing to God's Word even when it challenges you.

Evidence: Weaver asks, 'What is your attitude? What is my attitude? Is it one of rebellion? Is it one of defiance, unbelief? Or is it one of submission to scripture?'

Test all teachings by Scripture alone

Summary: Like the Bereans, search the Scriptures to verify whether teachings align with God's Word, and reject human traditions that contradict it.

Evidence: Weaver cites Acts 17:11 and Luther's example of testing church fathers by Scripture.

Honor parental authority in matters of liberty

Summary: Even if something is biblically lawful, children and teenagers living at home must not partake without their parents' knowledge and consent.

Evidence: Weaver warns, 'if you act without the consent and knowledge and approval of your parents, it is rebellion. And it is sin.'

Practice moderation and self-control

Summary: Recognize that while wine may be lawful, we must not be brought under its power, and we may choose to abstain for personal holiness.

Evidence: Weaver cites 1 Corinthians 6:12 and the example of Stonewall Jackson avoiding whiskey because he liked it.

Consider the weaker brother

Summary: Be willing to forego lawful liberties if exercising them would cause a weaker brother to stumble.

Evidence: Weaver mentions 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 as teaching this principle.

Keep an open mind for further study

Summary: As the series continues, maintain a teachable spirit to learn what Scripture says about the condemnation and commendation of wine.

Evidence: Weaver urges, 'Especially in the coming week to keep an open mind. As we look at the scriptures and see the condemnation and the commendation of wine.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T02:41:16Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T15:58:41Z

Clean Transcript

The Lord's Supper - Part 7

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

The message you are about to hear was produced by Dominion Ministry. If you would like to support this ministry by becoming a sermon partner or obtain additional high-resolution CDs, DVDs, or MP3s featuring the teaching of Pastor John Weaver, please visit the Dominion Ministry website at www.dominion.org. www.dominionministry.com. This ministry is completely supported by donations and it is through those donations that we are able to provide sermons for sermonaudio.com. Please visit our website at www.dominionministry.com to subscribe or make your donation today. Thank you. Let's open our Bibles today to 1 Corinthians chapter 11. 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And let's begin reading there with verse 20, and we're not going to read a lot today just simply because I've got a lot of information for you. 1 Corinthians 11, verse 20, "When you come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What?
#1 | 0:04 to 1:32 | cleaned
Have you not houses to eat and drink in, or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
#2 | 1:33 to 2:31 | cleaned
Now let me just stop there for today and take just a few moments to review and try to tie things together so you can see the progress that we've made in this. Remember I told you that the Lord's Supper is indeed an ordinance. It's a sovereign ordinance since God himself instituted it. It's a gospel ordinance since it gives us the realities of the gospel. We've looked at the names of the Lord's Supper in the Bible. We've looked at the significance of the Lord's Supper in the Bible and showed it to you under the various meals that are represented thereof. We've seen the partakers of the Lord's Supper, those who are qualified to partake. We've also looked at the reproof that the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Church because of all the divisions, which resulted even in the division in the Lord's Supper.
#3 | 2:32 to 3:26 | cleaned
There were personal divisions, there were pastoral divisions, there were judicial divisions, intellectual, spiritual, social, and cultural divisions. Let me just say it very plainly, Corinth was indeed a problem church. And so the Apostle Paul not only had to write them two letters, but he also had to personally visit them as well.
#4 | 3:27 to 3:46 | cleaned
Now, the last time we studied here, we looked at the time and the servers of the Lord's Supper. And I believe the key phrase as to the time is, "as often as you do it." He said, "this do in remembrance of me." And in the servers we looked at, I pointed out that traditionally deacons have always done it, but the Bible does not require that. But rather, I believe a godly man should be used to help in that as well. Now, if you've got a deacon who is a godly man, wonderful. But there have been plenty of deacons I know that are ungodly men, so God requires, I believe, godliness involved in it. Now, today we're going to begin our study on the elements that are involved in the Lord's Supper.
#5 | 3:47 to 4:37 | cleaned
So, let me ask this question. Which elements, or what elements, were used by Jesus Christ? What were the elements that our Lord used when he first initiated and instituted the supper? Let me ask you another question. I want you to think about this. What were the elements that the Christian church has used throughout the centuries? Here's another question. Does it matter whether or not we use the right elements? Does it matter whether or not we make substitution for the elements?
#6 | 4:37 to 5:24 | cleaned
Now, in order to answer some of these questions, I want to share with you a number of things today, but I want you to remember, please, that the Lord's Supper was instituted in the context of the Passover. Now, that does not mean that it is identical with the Passover. Certainly it is not. It's a totally separate institution. But if you were to read Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, you would find that this supper was instituted at the end of the Passover meal. So when you begin to understand that, then at least it should give you a simple understanding as to, in all probability, what the elements were that our Lord used when he instituted the Lord's Supper. So let's begin with the elements and the first one I'm going to deal with is bread.
#7 | 5:26 to 6:19 | cleaned
The Bible says very plainly that he took bread and he broke it. And he gave to them and said, "Take, this is my body, which is broken for you."
#8 | 6:20 to 6:30 | cleaned
Now, the word for bread is the Greek word artos, which is translated in our Bibles as bread, loaf or showbread. Now, the word artos refers to food that is composed of flour mixed with water and baked. It also is used of the bread that Israelites used in the form of an oblong or a round cake that could be cut or broken in pieces. It was also, the word is also used of the loaves that were consecrated by our Lord. It is also used of the word used at the love feast and at the Lord's supper.
#9 | 6:31 to 7:12 | cleaned
Now the Bible tells us that Jesus took bread. Where did he get the bread? And the answer would have to be from the table on which they had been eating. So that means then when he took the bread, the Passover bread was what? Unleavened. So very obviously, the bread then has to be unleavened bread.
#10 | 7:14 to 7:37 | cleaned
Now, if you look in your Bibles, hold 1 Corinthians 11, but look in your Bibles to Matthew 26 and verse 26. Let me just show you. Undoubtedly, he took the bread from the Passover table. In Matthew 26 and verse 26, the Word of God says this, "And as they were eating," what meal were they eating? The Passover meal. "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and break it and gave to the disciples and said, Take, eat. This is my body." Now, "as they were eating," who is the "they"? Evidently refers to the disciples, because when you look back in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians 11 now and verse 25, the Apostle Paul tells us, "After the same manner also he," Christ, "took the cup when he had supped." So Christ evidently had finished his meal. The disciples may have still been eating, but since he finished his meal then, he took the bread and, of course, he instituted then the Lord's Supper. So the bread then was taken from the Passover table, which meant it was unleavened bread.
#11 | 7:37 to 8:48 | cleaned
Now, if you look in Matthew 26 and verse 17, if you would. Matthew 26, verse 17.
#12 | 8:48 to 8:59 | cleaned
Now, the first day of the feast of what? Unleavened bread. What is that? That's the Passover. So very obviously then the bread was unleavened. If you would go back in your Bibles to Exodus chapter 12, and begin reading there with verse 8. We won't read the entire passage, but Exodus chapter 12 and verse 8. Here is the institution of the Passover. "And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, with the purtenance thereof. And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning you shall burn with fire."
#13 | 8:59 to 9:51 | cleaned
"And thus shall you eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand. You shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Passover." And if you'll skip down to verse 14, "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial. And you shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations. You shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread."
#14 | 9:52 to 10:14 | cleaned
And he goes on and he talks about how that there is to be no leaven found in the house. So, the bread of the Passover was unleavened, our Lord took the bread, and He very clearly then used it to institute the Lord's Supper. Now, you remember in 1 Corinthians 5 and verse 7, the Bible tells us that even Jesus Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us. So there should be no discussion, there should be no misunderstanding concerning the bread. It was, it should be, it must be unleavened bread. Now, you and I would not even think of changing the unleavened bread. We would not even consider replacing it with cookies or doughnuts.
#15 | 10:14 to 11:02 | cleaned
Why would we not do that? You would say, well, first of all, it would spoil the type because Jesus Christ—and oftentimes, leaven in the Bible is a symbol of sin. You remember that? Why was it required to be unleavened? Because Jesus Christ is the sinless Son of God. And when you use leaven, you're mixing evil with it then. And that's why we will not substitute doughnuts and cookies and light bread and things like that. Because it would not only spoil the picture and the emblem and the type, but we would also be arrogating to ourself authority that we do not have. Jesus Christ is the one who instituted the Lord's Supper, and he instituted it with unleavened bread. So very clearly then, no one has the authority and no one has the right to change that element, nor any of the elements.
#16 | 11:06 to 12:05 | cleaned
Now, secondly today, I want to deal with the liquid. Ask yourself this question. What was in the cup that our Lord used when he instituted the Lord's Supper? Let me tell you and then listen carefully, because I'm going to begin a message today, which is going to take me two messages to finish. I believe the liquid in our Lord's cup was wine. Pure and simple. Now, I did say wine, W-I-N-E. Now, please listen carefully. Wine is wine. Fermented wine is a redundancy. If it is wine, it is fermented. If it is not fermented, it is not wine. Now, I know that many Christians and many preachers will howl and whine over this point, but please listen to me carefully. Do not challenge me until I finish the next two messages. Then if you want to challenge me, that's fine. But I'm going to show you and I believe prove to you from the Bible that it was indeed real, genuine wine. Now, immediately someone's going to say, "But now, Brother Weaver, I read my Bible."
#17 | 12:06 to 13:29 | cleaned
And if you'll go to Luke 22, there you have the institution of the Lord's Supper. Just like you have it in Matthew 26 and just like you have it in the book of Mark. And boy, when you get to Luke 22, you get blown out of the water because the Bible says very plainly there that it's the fruit of the vine. Well, let's look in our Bibles, Luke chapter 22 and verse 18. Look what our Lord says. Luke 22, verse 18. And remember now, verse 17, let's read verse 17, just so that you can see it's the Lord's Supper in view.
#18 | 13:29 to 14:03 | cleaned
"And 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 shall come." Wow. You say, "Well, there it is, Brother Weaver, fruit of the vine, grape juice, plain and simple." No, not plain and not simple. You've got to understand the figures of speech that are used in the Bible. E. W. Bullinger has a book just about, I guess, three inches thick, just on the figures of speech in the Bible. I'm not going to go over all of these figures of speech, but there are metonymies, ironies, metaphors, synecdoches, hyperboles, allegories, parables, and a host of others. And there are certain things in the Bible you cannot understand unless you understand the figures of speech.
#19 | 14:03 to 15:02 | cleaned
Let me give you two of them. The first one is a hyperbole. Many of you know what a hyperbole is. The Greek word hyper means over, above, and beyond. And balein means to cast or to throw. So what is a hyperbole? It's something that you cast or throw over and above. It is, basically speaking, an exaggeration so that you will understand the greatness or the vastness of something. Let me give you a good illustration of a hyperbole.
#20 | 15:02 to 15:33 | cleaned
Look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy chapter 1 and verse 28. Deuteronomy 1, verse 28.
#21 | 15:34 to 15:42 | cleaned
Now you remember how the ten spies brought back an evil report. You remember that? Look what they said. Deuteronomy 1, verse 28. "Whither shall we go up? Our brethren have discouraged our hearts, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover, we have seen the sons of the Anakims there."
#22 | 15:42 to 16:09 | cleaned
Now, let me ask you a question. Did those walls literally reach into heaven? No. That's a hyperbole. They were great walls. They were big walls. They may have been taller than the average city wall, but they did not literally reach up into the heavens. So here is a hyperbole. They've walled up into heaven. No. It's there for you to understand that they were mighty walls, but they certainly did not reach into heaven.
#23 | 16:10 to 16:42 | cleaned
You can find hyperboles all through the Bible. It's a figure of speech. It's just like we said, if I've told you once, I've told you 10,000 times. Have I ever told you anything 10,000 times? No, it's a figure of speech. It's a hyperbole. I've told my wife something maybe 10,000 times, but Jay's pointed her. But you understand what I'm saying. Nobody's told anyone something 10,000 times. It's just a figure of speech. Saying I've told you a lot of times.
#24 | 16:42 to 17:15 | cleaned
Well, what is a metonymy? I'm going to show you this from the Bible. A metonymy. The Greek word meta means with. Onoma is the Greek word for name. The word metonymy means with name or the same as a name. Here's what a metonymy is. Listen carefully and we'll show you several illustrations of it. A metonymy occurs when the matter or the substance of a thing is given for the thing itself.
#25 | 17:16 to 17:50 | cleaned
Let me say that again. A metonymy occurs when the matter or the substance of a thing is given for the thing itself. Let me give you the illustrations. Look in your Bibles, first of all, to the book of Nahum. Nahum chapter 2, one of the minor prophets. Nahum chapter 2. And look at verse 7. Nahum, verse 3 it is. Nahum chapter 2 and verse 3. Nahum chapter 2 and verse 3. Here's the metonymy.
#26 | 17:51 to 18:29 | cleaned
In fact, let me read just verses 1 and 2 just so that you can see the context. "He that dasheth in pieces has come up before thy face. Keep the munition, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily. For the Lord hath turned away the excellency of Jacob as the excellency of Israel. For the emptiers have emptied them out and marred their vine branches."
#27 | 18:29 to 18:54 | cleaned
Now look, "The shield of his mighty men is made red, the valiant men are in scarlet, the chariot shall be with flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken." Now we're discussing a picture of warfare. And here the Bible says the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.
#28 | 18:54 to 19:28 | cleaned
Now how horrified would you be if you were in a walled city and you saw some soldiers come up and grab all the fir trees and start trying to shake them. You wouldn't be too afraid, because especially if a fir tree was that big around, they're not going to shake it. What does this mean when he says the fir trees shall be terribly shaken? Lances and spears were made out of fir wood. They're shaking their lances. They're shaking their spears.
#29 | 19:29 to 20:03 | cleaned
So here is a metonymy. Here the matter or the substance of something is put for the thing itself. So since they were made out of fir wood, the fir tree shall be terribly shaken. That's a metonymy. Look in your Bibles, if you would, to the book of Lamentations, right after the book of Jeremiah. Lamentations 3 and verse 7. Lamentations 3 and verse 7. Here's another metonymy. Look what Jeremiah says, "He hath hedged me about that I cannot get out, he hath made my chain heavy." Guess what the word heavy is? It's the word brass. He hath made my chain brass. He made my chain brazen. In other words, what he is saying is, when he's made my chain heavy, he's made my bondage hard and cruel and heavy. That's a metonymy. He's made my chains brass. Very obviously, if you're chained and you've got heavy chains on, you're suffering. That's a metonymy. Look in your Bibles to Psalm 132. Psalm 132 and verse 11. Here's a metonymy. Psalm 132, verse 11. Look what the Scripture says, "The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."
#30 | 20:04 to 21:35 | cleaned
Wait a minute. What's the fruit of his body? It's a child. It's a male heir, it's a descendant. So when he says "of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne," the matter or the substance is put for the thing itself. He's talking about a child. He's talking about a male descendant. That's the metonymy. Look in Psalm 127 in verse three, since you're there, Psalm 127, verse three. Here's another metonymy. "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." Well, what's the fruit of the womb?
#31 | 21:36 to 22:17 | cleaned
Is it a puppet, a baby doll? No, it's a baby. The fruit of the womb is his reward. So here the substance or the matter of something is put for the thing itself.
#32 | 22:17 to 22:30 | cleaned
Now, look in your Bibles to Psalm 49 and verse 11. Psalm, not Psalm 49, I'm sorry, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Genesis 49 and verse 11.
#33 | 22:31 to 22:41 | cleaned
Here's another one, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Look what the Bible says. "Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes." Now, wait a minute. If he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes, are not his garments and his clothes the same thing? Well, of course. Well, what's the blood of grapes? It's wine. What is wine? It's the blood of grapes. It's the blood of grapes. If you look in verse 12 to show you he means wine, "His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk." So it's a metonymy. And when our Lord said in Luke 22 that he would no longer drink of the fruit of the vine, that is metonymy. That is where the substance or the matter is put for the thing itself. The fruit of the vine is wine. It's not grape juice.
#34 | 22:50 to 23:58 | cleaned
I'm not going to get into this now, but there's no way in the world back in those days you could prevent grape juice from fermenting. To prevent it, you have to have refrigeration. They didn't have refrigeration. So the fruit of the vine was wine.
#35 | 24:00 to 24:15 | cleaned
Now, as we dig our way through this subject, we must remember one thing, that our interpretation of the scripture must conform to the analogy of faith. What do I mean by that? I mean this. We cannot take one passage like Luke 22, the fruit of the vine, and say, well, that means grape juice, when very obviously in other passages in the Bible, it does not mean grape juice. In other words, we have to consider each passage in the analogy of faith in the general teaching of the entirety of the Word of God.
#36 | 24:15 to 24:55 | cleaned
Now, the Bible gives us this principle in 1 Corinthians 2 and verse 13, when God says, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." So we compare Scripture with Scripture until we find out what the analogy of faith really is. So we cannot maintain that the fruit of the vine in Luke 22 is grape juice when other passages of the Bible say no, it's not grape juice, it is wine. First of all, let me say this, the issue of using wine in the Lord's Supper will do at least three things for us, I hope, I pray. What are the three things will this issue do for us? First, and hopefully, it will make us search the scriptures for ourselves.
#37 | 24:55 to 25:57 | cleaned
You remember what the Apostle Paul taught in Acts chapter 17? And then he commended those Bereans. He said, "But these were more noble than those in Thessalonica." Why? "In that they searched the word of God daily, whether these things were so or not." So first, it ought to make us search the scripture and compare scripture with scripture for ourselves. Secondly, it will test our fidelity to scripture.
#38 | 25:58 to 26:26 | cleaned
You know what we've said all along? We've said Sola Scriptura. That is, the scriptures alone are our sole authority for faith and practice.
#39 | 26:27 to 26:39 | cleaned
Now, let me ask you a question, don't you think about this? Are the scriptures in reality your sole authority for faith and practice, or do you include, well, that's the way I was raised, or this is what I've always believed? You follow me? It will test our fidelity to Scripture. Thirdly, it will test our submission to Scripture. Will we bow to the word of God? Or will we fall back upon what we've always been taught, what we've always believed and the way we've been raised and the way we've always done it? You follow me? There's a big difference between submission to the word of God and tradition. You see, Isaiah 8 in verse 20 says this: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
#40 | 26:43 to 27:42 | cleaned
Now, I want to give you a quote because I can tell you this firsthand. Whenever we hear something new and I've already mentioned this and especially in reference to those two messages resisting the truth. But whenever we hear something new or different, we automatically have a tendency to shut our minds and say that cannot possibly be true. But can you imagine the difficulty that Martin Luther and those men who followed him had in their day, coming out of a thousand years of darkness, not having the Word of God read, but believing the church and the church fathers. I want you to listen to what Martin Luther said. If you have difficulty in bowing to scripture, consider these words. Martin Luther writes, "No one will believe how great an ordeal it is and how severe a shock when a person first realizes that he must believe and teach contrary to the fathers, especially when he sees that so many excellent, intelligent, and learned men, yes, the best of them, taught thus, holy men like
#41 | 27:43 to 29:04 | cleaned
Saints Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. I too have often experienced this shock. But in spite of this, that one man, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, must have greater weight with me than all the holiest people on earth put together. When we think of the false doctrine of priestly celibacy, for example, we see how true it is that virtually the whole visible church, including the best people in it, can fall under the spell of error.
#42 | 29:04 to 29:35 | cleaned
What then, asks Luther, shall we condemn these men? No, I do not intend to condemn Benedict and others, he says, but I do propose to take their books and carry them to Christ and his word as a criterion for comparison. If their doctrine agrees with the gospel, I shall accept it. If not, I shall say, you may be a holy man, but you will never subject me to your rule, for it is a human Bible.
#43 | 29:36 to 30:03 | cleaned
Therefore, let the devil adopt it. I do not want it. Strong words. But they're true words. Luther went on to say this should have been our policy long ago. How different the sad history of the church would have been if we had followed this course. And what did he say? He said, all of these learned, godly, holy men, I'm not going to just take what they say, I'm going to take what they say and compare it to the word of God. If what they say agrees with the Word of God, fine. I'll bow to it. If it doesn't agree with the Word of God, I'll refuse it. Let the devil have it. It's a human dogma.
#44 | 30:03 to 30:44 | cleaned
You see, folks, the whole Reformation really and truly turned and hinged on this one principle, sola scriptura. The word of God alone is to be our sole authority for faith and practice. Listen, listen to what the Westminster Confession of Faith says. Here it is. "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined and whose sentence we are to rest can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." Period. Does it matter how holy? Does it matter how ancient? Everything is to be tried by the Scriptures. The Scriptures alone are to be our sole authority for faith and practice.
#45 | 30:48 to 31:50 | cleaned
And let me tell you something. Whatever the Scriptures teach us, we must believe it and submit to it, whether we understand it or not, or whether we agree with it or not. You know, many of you heard old Lester Roloff when he was alive. I love that man. Lester Roloff was not a theologian. He was not a scholar. But he could warm your heart like no one else could.
#46 | 31:50 to 32:23 | cleaned
And I loved to hear him sing, and he couldn't sing. But his heart was so full of the love of the Lord. But I heard him on the radio one time, and he was dealing with Ephesians 1, verse 4, where it says that God has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world. Well, I knew Lester Roloff did not understand anything about the doctrine of election. But, you know, I thought, well, I'm going to listen to him. I'm going to just see what he has to say. And when he got to Ephesians 1 in verse 4, Lester Roloff said this. "Now, the Bible says we were chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world."
#47 | 32:23 to 33:09 | cleaned
He said, "Now, folks, I can't explain it. My mind's not deep enough to understand it, but I believe it and I bow to it," and then he went right on. You know, I thought, isn't that a wonderful, gracious attitude? He may not have been able to comprehend the doctrine himself, but if the Scripture said that he was going to bow to it, he wasn't going to fight it. Would it be wonderful if all of God's people refuse to fight against the word of God and just learn to bow to it.
#48 | 33:11 to 33:43 | cleaned
Now, the reason I said it's going to take me two more weeks to finish this message, because next week I want to bring a message which I have entitled "Wine, Its Condemnation and Its Commendation." You're going to find that wine is both condemned and commended in scripture. And then the next message will be answering questions and dealing with objections. So I want you to understand that we're going to try to be honest with scripture and we're going to look at both the negative and the positive concerning the usage of wine, especially in the Lord's Supper.
#49 | 33:45 to 34:29 | cleaned
Now, today, what I want to do is just lay down a number of general principles in order to begin the study. And let me just tell you, these general principles need to be remembered. OK, here we go. First. Listen carefully. When I teach that the liquid in the Lord's Supper should be wine, because that's what our Lord used, I am not advocating an all-out wine or alcohol drinking spree. Do you understand that? It is not my intention, purpose, or aim to encourage anyone to throw all caution to the wind and engage in the use of alcohol.
#50 | 34:29 to 35:15 | cleaned
That is not my intent whatsoever. We shall see from the Scripture that the same Scripture that commends the use of wine in certain situations also condemns the abuse of wine in every situation. We must understand that there is a proper use of alcohol and there is a misuse of alcohol. In fact, we must understand that that is true with practically everything in our life. There is the proper use and there is the abuse. And I understand that when I teach this, there may be some who will wrest the teaching to their own destruction. However, that does not make the teaching untrue nor the doctrine wrong. We must teach the truth and we must preach pure doctrine, even if some do abuse it and misuse it and wrest it to their own destruction. Why do we continue to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do not some abuse it? Yes. Do not some misuse it? Yes.
#51 | 35:15 to 36:29 | cleaned
Do not many refuse to believe it? Yes. But it's still true. It is still accurate. You see, it is my responsibility to teach the truth. And it's your responsibility to use the truth correctly. So please understand that the perversion and misuse of any doctrine does not nullify its veracity, that is, its truthfulness and its scripturalness. For instance, I could ask you, are fornication and adultery rampant in our world today? Well, of course. What is fornication and adultery? It is a misuse and abuse of the sanctity of sex. Just because there are fornicators and just because there are adulterers does not nullify the sanctity of sex in marriage. You follow me? Are there thieves in this world today? Yes. Are there robbers? Well, just because there are thieves and robbers does not nullify the right of private property. I can still own things and still possess things just because there's someone out there trying to steal from me.
#52 | 36:29 to 37:56 | cleaned
I mean, come on, let's be honest. You don't throw out the doctrine just because some abuse it and misuse it. Are there rebellious children in this world today? Well, of course there are. Oh, does that mean then we should quit teaching children, "obey your parents in the Lord for this is right, honor thy father and thy mother for this is the first commandment with promise"? No. It means that teaching needs to be taught even more. Heresies and perversions of any doctrine do not mean that the doctrine should not be taught, rather it emphasizes the need for the truth to be taught even more.
#53 | 37:56 to 38:35 | cleaned
So please do not understand, or please understand, I should say, that I am not advocating or saying that an unbridled and unwise use of wine is in any way pleasing to God. It is not. However, I am saying that the liquid in the cup should be wine, and as I shall show you before I close today, there is a difference between the religious use of wine and the social use of wine.
#54 | 38:37 to 39:08 | cleaned
So, my first general principle is this. Just because I am saying that the liquid in the Lord's Supper should be wine does not mean that I am advocating that everybody throw all caution to the wind and go out and buy 16 bottles of wine. I'm not saying that at all. OK, secondly, and I especially want to warn and admonish our older children and teenagers. Listen carefully what I'm about to say. You may understand the proper use of wine and the proper use of alcohol, and you may not abuse it or you may not misuse it, however, that does not mean that you may use it without the consent and knowledge and approval of your parents.
#55 | 39:09 to 39:56 | cleaned
I don't care how old you are. I don't care if you are 21. If you are living at home, you are under the authority of your parents. And children are commanded to be under authority. Even teenagers. Even older teenagers. So although there may not be anything wrong biblically with a glass of wine or drinking a glass of wine, it would be wrong if you did it without the knowledge and consent of your parents, because then you would be in rebellion against them. And the Bible says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."
#56 | 39:56 to 40:43 | cleaned
And "honor thy father and thy mother." So the act of drinking a glass of wine is not sinful in itself. I understand that. But if you act without the consent and knowledge and approval of your parents, it is rebellion. And it is sin. So I'm just warning you, just because you know the truth about something does not mean that you have the right to use it if you are under the authority of your parents. OK? You got that?
#57 | 40:43 to 41:13 | cleaned
Write that down in black and white in your notebooks and in your minds and in your hearts. OK, thirdly. The Bible does teach moderation in all things, the Bible says in Philippians four and verse five, "Let your moderation be known unto all men." Now, since the Bible teaches moderation in all things, that would certainly include the use of alcohol. Listen to me carefully. Since the Bible does say, "Let your moderation be known unto all men," and that would include the use of alcohol, that does not mean that we have to drink alcohol or that we must drink alcohol on social or regular occasions. You've heard me say this repeatedly.
#58 | 41:14 to 42:08 | cleaned
I've never had a beer in my entire life. I made that statement to one individual and they said, "Well, it's about time you had one." I said, "No, I've lived 61 years without it. I can live 61 more without it." I have no desire for it. I mean, it's just that simple.
#59 | 42:08 to 42:23 | cleaned
Now, the point I'm trying to make is this. The only occasion that I would normally have any alcohol is either ecclesiastically or medicinally, and those are proper uses for it, according to the Bible. Although it is not a sin to use alcohol, as it is commended in scripture, that does not mean that we must use it or have to use it on every occasion or on any occasion other than the Lord's Supper. I've been around weddings. I've been in other places where they serve wine.
#60 | 42:25 to 43:03 | cleaned
And I usually would never take a glass. In fact, if they're serving it, I usually would not even have a glass of tea, lest someone think I was drinking it. I just don't want to do it.
#61 | 43:03 to 43:14 | cleaned
Now, listen to me carefully. The social and the occasional use of wine or alcohol falls into the area of Christian liberty. And when I say that, I mean this. We may be free to use it, but that does not mean that we have to use it. If Ed is having a glass of wine and he can do it without becoming drunk or without abusing it, fine. He's free to have a glass of wine, but I am also free not to have a glass of wine. You follow me? Just because he exercises his liberty in that area does not mean that I have to exercise my liberty in that area.
#62 | 43:16 to 44:07 | cleaned
Now, so there are several reasons given in the Bible whereby we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberties. I'm going to give you these. Now, especially one of them I'm going to enlarge upon when I start dealing with objections and answers. But I want to just give them to you today. Here are three reasons given in scripture whereby we may normally forego the lawful exercise of our liberties. Look in your Bible.
#63 | 44:07 to 44:39 | cleaned
First of all, the first Corinthians chapter nine. First Corinthians chapter nine. Because I'm going to give you an illustration of it. The first reason why we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberty is for the furtherance of the gospel. For the furtherance of the gospel. There are some times that you may have liberty to do something. It just may not be expedient, may not be best for you at that particular time. In 1 Corinthians 9 and verse 5, look what the Apostle Paul asked.
#64 | 44:39 to 45:14 | cleaned
"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?" Let me ask you a question. Did not Paul have the absolute right to get married if he wanted to get married? That's what he's saying there. Do we not have the ability to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles and of the brethren and the Lord, and especially Cephas, that's Peter. So when they say Peter was the first pope, well, Peter had a wife. And Paul specifically says he had a wife, and there's an instance in the Bible where our Lord healed Peter's wife's mother. Why did Paul not have a wife?
#65 | 45:16 to 46:00 | cleaned
Let me put it to you very bluntly, she'd probably slow him down. And Paul said, well, for the furtherance of the gospel and all I've got to do, I just don't want to be tied down. And there is a biblical teaching in First Corinthians chapter seven on three reasons why you should not marry and three reasons why you should marry.
#66 | 46:02 to 46:26 | cleaned
Now, I'm going to be honest, single people have several advantages over married people, but married people also have several advantages over single people, you see. But the Apostle Paul said, I have a right to get married if I want to, but for the furtherance of the gospel, I'm not going to do that. I want to continue my missionary journeys and my hectic schedule, and I just don't have time for a wife right now. But he had the right. So you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberty for the furtherance of the gospel.
#67 | 46:28 to 47:02 | cleaned
OK, the second reason, if you look in your Bibles to Matthew chapter five. Matthew chapter five, the second reason you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberties is for personal holiness. Look in Matthew chapter five and verse 30 at what our Lord said, Matthew five, verse 30, and you could see the context. "And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Now, one of the next reasons that we can forego the lawful exercise of our liberty is for personal holiness. Our Lord said, if something offends you, don't mess with it. Get away from it. Cut it off. Let me let me tell you something. We are.
#68 | 47:03 to 48:04 | cleaned
We're so prone to follow our feelings. And our lust and our desires. But if I have a problem with lust and covetousness. Let me ask you a question. Do I need to forego the lawful exercise of my liberty of visiting the beach in the summer? I'd say yes, wouldn't you? If I've got that problem. But now somebody else may not have that problem. You see what I'm saying? If I have...
#69 | 48:07 to 48:42 | cleaned
Let me do something that will really apply to women. If I have an exceeding desire for chocolate, you know, Alice wants one of these shirts just to give me the chocolate and nobody gets hurt, you know. But if I know that I've got a real propensity for that, what should I do? I want not to be visiting chocolate stores on a regular basis. It kind of reminds me of Stonewall Jackson.
#70 | 48:44 to 49:17 | cleaned
He had been out on a reconnaissance mission. And he came back so chilled and was shaking from the cold and the damp that his doctor insisted, insisted that he take a swallow of whiskey. And when Stonewall took that swallow, he made a face and the doctor said, "Oh, I'm so sorry, General Jackson. Is it that bad?" Jackson says, "No, no, it's that good. I've always liked it."
#71 | 49:19 to 49:54 | cleaned
That's why I never touch it. You see what I'm saying? He knew he liked it, so he just stayed away from it. Not that it was unlawful. But for the exercise of personal holiness, you may forego the lawful exercise of your liberty. Furtherance of the gospel, personal holiness, and thirdly, for the benefit of the weaker brother. By the way, before I give you this, let me give you a verse what the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6 verse 12.
#72 | 49:54 to 50:23 | cleaned
Listen to what he said. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Now listen to what he said, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient."
#73 | 50:23 to 50:44 | cleaned
Now the word expedient is the Greek word sumphero, which means profitable or to be good. He said all things are lawful for me, but not all things are necessarily profitable for me. And I'm not going to be brought under the power of any.
#74 | 50:45 to 50:59 | cleaned
Now, the truth of the matter is, folks, I like ice cream. I don't care what flavor it is. I just like it. And I enjoy eating it occasionally. And my wife can tell you if it's in the refrigerator, I'll eat it. If it's not there, I won't eat it. So consequently, she doesn't buy it that much. But although there's nothing wrong with eating ice cream occasionally, there would be something wrong with sitting down and eating four or five quarts of it at one time.
#75 | 51:00 to 51:34 | cleaned
This is what he's saying. All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. I'm not going to do it, and I'm not going to be brought under the power of any. So we may forego the lawful exercise of our liberty for the furtherance of the gospel, for personal holiness, and thirdly, for the benefit of the weaker brother. Now, I'm not going to delve in this today, because I'm going to deal with this when I come up to the objections.
#76 | 51:37 to 52:00 | cleaned
But you will find this teaching in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans chapter 14. And let me point out the fact that we cannot encourage anyone to do what we do without our knowledge, who is a weaker brother. If we encourage him to do what we're doing without our knowledge, it would be sin. So, we have to always consider a weaker brother, and I'll deal with that a little bit later.
#77 | 52:01 to 52:24 | cleaned
Now, let me just say that it should be clearly understood that while the Bible does not condemn the proper use of wine or alcohol, there is no constraint and there is no command that one must drink socially or regularly. In the proper setting, one may have the liberty to partake in a biblical manner. At the same time, others would have the liberty to abstain in the proper manner.
#78 | 52:24 to 52:52 | cleaned
Now, let me give you one other general principle, and that is this. There is a difference. There is a difference between the social and the ceremonial or religious or ecclesiastical use of wine. Let me explain it like this. The social use of wine or alcohol is in the area of Christian liberty. The ceremonial or religious or ecclesiastical use of wine is by command and example. Let me show you.
#79 | 52:54 to 53:35 | cleaned
Look in your Bibles to Deuteronomy 14. Deuteronomy 14. Without me going into great detail, you remember that I taught you in times past when I dealt with the subject of biblical wealth, that there were three tithes in Scripture. There was the Levitical tithe, the 10 percent that went to the teaching Levite. There was the poor tithe, which was 10% taken every third year or three and a third per year, which went to the poor. And then there was another 10% tithe, which was a tithe of rejoicing or the festival tithe. And that tithe went to the family. And the family used that money for themselves as kind of a Christian vacation when they went to Jerusalem for those feasts. When you're reading in Deuteronomy 14, the passage that I'm dealing with, it is now dealing with the tithe of rejoicing. OK, I want you to look what he says. Let's begin reading with verse 22. This is the tithe of rejoicing, Deuteronomy 14, verse 22. "Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed that the field bringeth forth year by year, and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose to place his name there," which was Jerusalem, "the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and
#80 | 53:36 to 55:20 | cleaned
the firstlings of thy herds, and of the flocks that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always." Now, God says you're going to take this Christian vacation. You're going to come to these feasts. Why? That you may learn to fear the Lord thy God always.
#81 | 55:20 to 55:36 | cleaned
Now, look at verse 24. "And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou shalt not be able to carry it"—you can't drive your oxen too far and you can't carry a lot of heavy stuff—"or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose." Now look, "And thou shalt bestow that money," help me out now, "for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatever thy soul desireth. And thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine household." Now, let me show you what he's saying in verse 26. "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after." If you want a T-bone steak, have it, says God.
#82 | 55:36 to 56:38 | cleaned
If you want a fresh leg of lamb, you may have that. If you want a bottle of wine, you may have that. If you want strong drink, you may have that. Now, does that mean that you may get drunk? No. Does that mean that you may eat those foods that were forbidden by God? No. Does that mean that you can sin and rebel? No. And don't you know what he said?
#83 | 56:39 to 57:05 | cleaned
"And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever." And in other words, you may eat a T-bone steak if you want it, but then you may not. You may not want it. You may drink wine if you want it, but then you may not. You may not want it. You may have yayin, you may have strong drink, but then you may not want it either. See, this is in the realm of freedom of liberty.
#84 | 57:05 to 57:39 | cleaned
They were free to have it, not abuse it, but they were also free not to have it. This would be what we would call a social use, or a ceremonial use in one sense of the word. At least, not a ceremonial, but just a social use of it at these feasts.
#85 | 57:40 to 57:59 | cleaned
Now I want you to turn to another passage. Let's begin in Exodus 29, and we're going to look at several passages. And here you have the ceremonial, religious, or ecclesiastical use of wine. By the way, I can do this if you need me to do it. But please don't try to come up with the usage of the Hebrew and the Greek words, because I've done a study on yayin, chemer, enos, tirosh.
#86 | 58:00 to 58:37 | cleaned
I know what they mean and I can show you what they mean. But I mean, there's no reason to do that unless you just want it done. I can show you verse after verse where tirosh is used, where enos is used, etc. But I'm just showing you the word here is wine. Look in your Bibles, Exodus 29, beginning there, verse 38, just so that you can see this is what God commands. Now look, Exodus 29, verse 38.
#87 | 58:38 to 59:02 | cleaned
"Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar." So God's demanding this now, this is to be offered upon the altar. "Two lambs of the first year, day by day, continually. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, the other lamb shalt thou offer at even. And with the one lamb, a tenth deal of flour, mingled with the fourth part of a hin of beaten oil, and the fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering." What?
#88 | 59:02 to 59:31 | cleaned
What did I just read? God said, I want a fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering in this daily offering. Look in your Bibles to Leviticus 23, verse 13. Leviticus 23, verse 13. Leviticus 23, verse 13.
#89 | 59:32 to 59:51 | cleaned
God says, "And the meat or the meal offering thereof shall be two-tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savor, and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of the hin." OK, go to Numbers 15 and verse 5. I want to ask you a question, so look at these passages with me very carefully. Numbers 15, note if you would please, verse 5. Numbers 15, verse 5. He talks about the offering that's to be offered to the Lord, verse 4, and here's what it should contain. "And the fourth part of a hin of wine for a drink offering shalt thou prepare with a burnt offering or sacrifice for one lamb." Now look in verse 10 of the same chapter. "And thou shalt bring for a drink offering a half a hin of wine for an offering made by fire of a sweet savor unto the Lord." Now he's got a half a hin. Now look in your Bibles to 1 Chronicles 9 and verse 29.
#90 | 1:00:01 to 1:01:10 | cleaned
1 Chronicles 9 and verse 29. 1 Chronicles 9.
#91 | 1:01:10 to 1:01:12 | cleaned
"Some of them also were appointed to oversee the vessels," talking about the Levites. "Some of them also were appointed to oversee the vessels, and all the instruments of the sanctuary, and the fine flour, and the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices."
#92 | 1:01:31 to 1:01:48 | cleaned
Now, let me ask you a question. Let's go back to the Old Testament. You and I are priests. God says you're going to offer me one lamb in the morning. You have to offer a fourth part of beaten oil with two-tenth deals of flour and a quarter hin of wine. And I look at you and I say, "I think we'll use grape juice. What do you think?" "Yeah, I think we are. Let's substitute it." If we substituted, would it have been accepted by God? Well, of course not. In other words, the point I'm trying to make is this: when God demanded wine, the priests did not have the liberty to make a substitution. Now, all I'm trying to point out is this, if God used wine in his offerings, if wine was used in the Passover and it was, and if wine initially was instituted in the Lord's Supper and it was, do we have the right to change it to grape juice?
#93 | 1:01:49 to 1:03:16 | cleaned
And the answer is no. Now, let me make some applications, the first one is this, and I hope this makes you think. And I will try to answer this for you if I do not answer it in my last message, somebody asked me the question and I'll answer it. But you must ask yourself: if wine is commended in the Bible, and the church for centuries used wine in the Lord's Supper, how did it get changed to grape juice? I'll answer that one for you, but that's an interesting question. And by the way, the change to grape juice was relatively of recent origin.
#94 | 1:03:18 to 1:04:05 | cleaned
My next application is this. As we begin to look at the use of wine in the Bible, you've got to ask yourself this. What is your attitude? What is my attitude? Is it one of rebellion? Is it one of defiance, unbelief? Or is it one of submission to scripture? As I said earlier, we may not always understand, we may not always agree, but we must always submit to the word of God. And trust God for further understanding, I urge you.
#95 | 1:04:10 to 1:04:41 | cleaned
Especially in the coming week to keep an open mind. As we look at the scriptures and see the condemnation and the commendation of wine in the Bible, so that we can see its proper use and its abuse. And we'll know exactly, I believe, what God would have us to use in the elements and how He would have us to live our lives and at the same time be honoring and glorifying to Him. Let's pray. Father, we are thankful for Jesus Christ this day and we are thankful for the Word of God. We're thankful, Lord, that your word is clear, concise and precise. And I pray that you'd give us grace to bow to it, believe it and apply it. In the name of Jesus Christ, we ask and pray, Amen.
#96 | 1:04:43 to 1:05:48 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T02:41:16Z

The Lord's Supper - Part 7

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

John Weaver continues his series on the Lord's Supper by examining the elements used by Christ at its institution. He argues that the bread must be unleavened, taken from the Passover table, and that the liquid in the cup was real wine, not grape juice. He explains the figure of speech metonymy to interpret 'fruit of the vine' in Luke 22 as wine. Weaver emphasizes the principle of sola scriptura, urging submission to Scripture over tradition. He clarifies that advocating wine in the Lord's Supper is not an endorsement of social drinking or abuse, and distinguishes between the religious/ceremonial use of wine (commanded) and social use (a matter of Christian liberty). He promises future messages on wine's condemnation and commendation in Scripture and on answering objections.

Opening

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 11:20-29

"When you come together, therefore, into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper, for in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper, and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have you not houses to eat and drink in, or despise you the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

Review of Previous Studies

Introduction to the Elements

Weaver introduces the topic of the elements used by Christ, the historic church, and whether substitution matters.

The Bread: Unleavened

Weaver argues from the Passover context and the Greek word artos that the bread was unleavened, symbolizing Christ's sinlessness, and that substitution would spoil the type and arrogate authority.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:26

"And as they were eating,"

what meal were they eating? The Passover meal.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:26

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and break it and gave to the disciples and said, Take, eat. This is my body."

Now,

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:26

"as they were eating,"

Now, if you look in Matthew 26 and verse 17, if you would. Matthew 26, verse 17.

Scripture Reading — Matthew 26:17

Now, the first day of the feast of

The Liquid: Wine, Not Grape Juice

Scripture Reading — Deuteronomy 1:28

"Whither shall we go up? Our brethren have discouraged our hearts, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover, we have seen the sons of the Anakims there."

Scripture Reading — Lamentations 3:7

"He hath hedged me about that I cannot get out, he hath made my chain heavy."

Wait a minute. What's the fruit of his body? It's a child. It's a male heir, it's a descendant. So when he says

Scripture Reading — Psalm 132:11

"of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne,"

Is it a puppet, a baby doll? No, it's a baby. The fruit of the womb is his reward. So here the substance or the matter of something is put for the thing itself.

Now, look in your Bibles to Psalm 49 and verse 11. Psalm, not Psalm 49, I'm sorry, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Genesis 49 and verse 11.

Here's another one, Genesis 49 and verse 11. Look what the Bible says.

Scripture Reading — Genesis 49:11-12

"Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes."

Scripture Reading — Genesis 49:11-12

"His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk."

The Analogy of Faith and Sola Scriptura

Weaver stresses interpreting Scripture by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, and that the Bible alone is the authority for faith and practice, citing Luther and the Westminster Confession.

Now, the Bible gives us this principle in 1 Corinthians 2 and verse 13, when God says,

Scripture Reading — 1 Corinthians 2:13

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."

Proper Attitude Toward Scripture

Weaver commends submission to Scripture even when we don't understand, illustrated by Lester Roloff's response to election, and warns against shutting our minds to new truth.

General Principles on Wine Use

Scripture Reading — Philippians 4:5

"Let your moderation be known unto all men."

Now, since the Bible teaches moderation in all things, that would certainly include the use of alcohol. Listen to me carefully. Since the Bible does say,

Scripture Reading — Philippians 4:5

"Let your moderation be known unto all men,"

Scripture Reading — Matthew 5:30

"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Religious vs. Social Use of Wine

1 Chronicles 9 and verse 29. 1 Chronicles 9.

The Lord's Supper - Part 7

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	710693344
Subject	Apologetics
Course	Truth and the Interpretation of Scripture
Genre	Sermon
Date	2006-03-12
Dictation Name
Book	Book 041: The Lord's Supper — Chapter 7
Source Timed Segments	96

Lecture Guide

Outline

Review of Previous Studies: Weaver reviews the series so far: the Lord's Supper as a sovereign, gospel ordinance; its names, significance, partakers; Paul's reproof of Corinthian divisions; and the time and servers of the Supper.
Introduction to the Elements: Weaver introduces the topic of the elements used by Christ, the historic church, and whether substitution matters.
The Bread: Unleavened: Weaver argues from the Passover context and the Greek word artos that the bread was unleavened, symbolizing Christ's sinlessness, and that substitution would spoil the type and arrogate authority.
The Liquid: Wine, Not Grape Juice: Weaver asserts the liquid was wine, explaining 'fruit of the vine' in Luke 22 as a metonymy where the substance (grapes) is put for the thing produced (wine). He notes fermentation was unavoidable in that era.
The Analogy of Faith and Sola Scriptura: Weaver stresses interpreting Scripture by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, and that the Bible alone is the authority for faith and practice, citing Luther and the Westminster Confession.
Proper Attitude Toward Scripture: Weaver commends submission to Scripture even when we don't understand, illustrated by Lester Roloff's response to election, and warns against shutting our minds to new truth.
General Principles on Wine Use: Weaver lays out principles: teaching wine in the Supper is not advocating social drinking; children must obey parents; moderation is taught; social use is a liberty, not a command; and there is a difference between religious and social use.
Religious vs. Social Use of Wine: Weaver distinguishes the commanded ceremonial use of wine in Old Testament offerings from the optional social use in Deuteronomy 14, arguing that substitution in commanded religious contexts is not permitted.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

The bread must be unleavened

Because the Lord's Supper was instituted at the end of the Passover meal, the bread Jesus took was the unleavened bread of the Passover, and substituting it would corrupt the type of Christ's sinless body.

Weaver cites Matthew 26:26 ('as they were eating') and Exodus 12:8 to show the Passover context, and argues leaven symbolizes sin.

'Fruit of the vine' means wine, not grape juice

Luke 22:18 uses a metonymy, a figure of speech where the substance (fruit of the vine) is put for the product (wine), as seen in other Scriptures like Genesis 49:11.

Weaver defines metonymy and gives examples: 'the fir trees shall be terribly shaken' (Nahum 2:3) meaning spears, and 'the blood of grapes' (Gen 49:11) meaning wine.

Scripture must interpret Scripture

We cannot isolate one passage (Luke 22) to mean grape juice when other passages clearly refer to wine; we must compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13).

Weaver says, 'We cannot maintain that the fruit of the vine in Luke 22 is grape juice when other passages of the Bible say no, it's not grape juice, it is wine.'

No authority to change the elements

Since Christ instituted the Supper with specific elements, no one has the right to substitute them; doing so arrogates authority and spoils the biblical picture.

Weaver states, 'Jesus Christ is the one who instituted the Lord's Supper, and he instituted it with unleavened bread. So very clearly then, no one has the authority... to change that element.'

Religious use of wine is by command, not liberty

In Old Testament offerings, God commanded wine; priests could not substitute grape juice. Similarly, in the Lord's Supper, the element is prescribed, not optional.

Weaver reads Exodus 29:38-40, Leviticus 23:13, Numbers 15:5,10, and asks, 'If God used wine in his offerings... do we have the right to change it to grape juice? And the answer is no.'

Teaching wine in the Supper is not advocating social drinking

Weaver clarifies that his argument for wine in the Lord's Supper does not mean he endorses unbridled social drinking; the Bible condemns abuse while commending proper use.

Weaver says, 'I am not advocating an all-out wine or alcohol drinking spree... the same Scripture that commends the use of wine in certain situations also condemns the abuse of wine in every situation.'

Scripture References

1 Corinthians 11:20-29: Read at the opening to set the context for the study on the Lord's Supper.
Matthew 26:26: Shows Jesus took bread 'as they were eating' the Passover meal, indicating the bread was unleavened.
Matthew 26:17: Identifies the meal as the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, confirming the bread was unleavened.
Exodus 12:8-14: Institution of the Passover, commanding unleavened bread and no leaven in the house.
1 Corinthians 5:7: Christ our Passover sacrificed for us, linking the unleavened bread to Christ's sinlessness.
Luke 22:17-18: Jesus speaks of not drinking 'the fruit of the vine' until the kingdom; Weaver argues this is a metonymy for wine.
Deuteronomy 1:28: Example of hyperbole: 'cities... walled up to heaven' to illustrate figurative language in Scripture.
Nahum 2:3: Example of metonymy: 'the fir trees shall be terribly shaken' meaning spears made of fir wood.
Lamentations 3:7: Example of metonymy: 'he hath made my chain heavy' (brass) meaning heavy bondage.
Psalm 132:11: Example of metonymy: 'fruit of thy body' meaning a descendant.
Psalm 127:3: Example of metonymy: 'fruit of the womb' meaning children.
Genesis 49:11-12: Example of metonymy: 'blood of grapes' meaning wine, supporting 'fruit of the vine' as wine.
1 Corinthians 2:13: Principle of comparing spiritual things with spiritual to find the analogy of faith.
Acts 17:11: The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily; Weaver urges the same attitude.
Isaiah 8:20: To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them.
Philippians 4:5: Let your moderation be known unto all men, applied to the use of alcohol.
1 Corinthians 9:5: Paul had the right to marry but forewent it for the gospel; example of foregoing liberty.
Matthew 5:30: If your right hand offends you, cut it off; applied to foregoing liberty for personal holiness.
1 Corinthians 6:12: All things are lawful but not all things are expedient; I will not be brought under the power of any.
Deuteronomy 14:22-26: The festival tithe allowed buying wine or strong drink for rejoicing before the Lord, showing social use as liberty.

Historical References

Martin Luther: Quoted on the shock of realizing one must teach contrary to the church fathers, and his commitment to test all by Scripture.
Westminster Confession of Faith: Quoted on the supreme judge of religious controversies being the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.
Lester Roloff: Mentioned as an example of submission to Scripture on election despite not fully understanding it.
Stonewall Jackson: Anecdote about Jackson refusing whiskey because he liked it too much, illustrating personal holiness.
E. W. Bullinger: Mentioned as author of a book on figures of speech in the Bible, used to introduce metonymy.

Important Quotes

The fruit of the vine is wine. It's not grape juice.

Succinctly states Weaver's central claim about the liquid element, based on his metonymy argument.

Jesus Christ is the one who instituted the Lord's Supper, and he instituted it with unleavened bread. So very clearly then, no one has the authority and no one has the right to change that element, nor any of the elements.

Establishes the principle that the elements are not subject to human alteration.

Will we bow to the word of God? Or will we fall back upon what we've always been taught, what we've always believed and the way we've been raised and the way we've always done it?

Challenges the congregation to examine whether their authority is Scripture or tradition.

I am not advocating an all-out wine or alcohol drinking spree. Do you understand that? It is not my intention, purpose, or aim to encourage anyone to throw all caution to the wind and engage in the use of alcohol.

Clarifies that teaching wine in the Lord's Supper is not an endorsement of social drinking or abuse.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

What does the Passover context of the Last Supper tell us about the kind of bread Jesus used, and why is that significant?

[Context]

Weaver argues the bread was unleavened because it was taken from the Passover table.

[Question]

How does understanding figures of speech like metonymy affect our interpretation of 'fruit of the vine' in Luke 22:18?

[Context]

Weaver explains metonymy with several biblical examples to argue it means wine.

[Question]

What does it mean to interpret Scripture by the 'analogy of faith,' and why is it important in this discussion?

[Context]

Weaver insists we must compare Scripture with Scripture rather than isolate one verse.

[Question]

How should we respond when we encounter a biblical teaching that challenges our traditions or long-held beliefs?

[Context]

Weaver uses Luther and Roloff as examples of submission to Scripture over tradition.

[Question]

What is the difference between the religious/ceremonial use of wine and the social use of wine, and why does it matter?

[Context]

Weaver distinguishes commanded religious use from optional social use using Deuteronomy 14 and Exodus 29.

[Question]

What are some biblical reasons a Christian might choose to forego a lawful liberty, such as drinking wine socially?

[Context]

Weaver lists furtherance of the gospel, personal holiness, and the weaker brother.

[Question]

If the church used wine in the Lord's Supper for centuries, how and why did the change to grape juice occur?

[Context]

Weaver poses this as a question for reflection, noting the change is relatively recent.

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T15:58:41Z