David Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell accomplished a great deal of good in the previous two centuries for the cause of Christ, but this fact does not mean that everything they taught or wrote was correct—especially when a topic was more related to opinion than to fact. Just as Apollos was mighty and eloquent in the Scriptures (but nevertheless inaccurate as it pertained to the baptism of John he was teaching), so it may be the case that brethren of the past or present may be mighty in the Scriptures but inaccurate in a matter or two.
Few today, for example, agree with Lipscomb’s view that Christians should not even vote because politics is so corrupt. He was right on his assessment of politics, but that is precisely the reason that Christians should vote. If we do not like what is happening to the country, we should elect new representatives, new senators, and a new president. If they too fail to do the will of the people, then we should vote them out until the message is received that the people of this nation are more interested in our government serving us than the will of lobbyists, special interest groups, and secular humanists. The non-involvement of Christians in this arena may have led to the sad condition that we now face.
Lipscomb and Sewell wrote a book titled Questions Answered, and on page 667 appears the heading, “SUPPER, INTOXICATING WINE IN THE LORD’S.” Three questions are all stated first and then answered in succession. This review shall deal with them one at a time, beginning with the first:
Was the Wine Used in the Last Supper by the Savior
Intoxicating or Non-Intoxicating?
His first sentence in reply to this question is: “I think beyond doubt that it was intoxicating.” He listed several reasons, but the first thing we ought to ask ourselves is: “In those texts that deal with the Last Supper, is there something that would lead to this conclusion?”
Neither the word fermented appears in any of the texts (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20), nor does the word wine! In fact, the word wine does not appear anywhere in the entire passage related to the Last Supper, although it is found 33 times in the New Testament. So what is the rationale for drawing this conclusion? Below is the answer which was given in paragraph form, but this reviewer has assigned numbers to each argument.
1. “I think so because the wine spoken of as generally used was intoxicating.” Was the wine commonly used by many in New Testament times usually fermented? Such was probably the case, but does that mean that no fresh wine was available? It does not. William Patton had published Bible Wines in 1874, and it provided a detailed study of methods used to prevent fermentation. Lipscomb could have seen the book in the 40 years he lived after it was published; if so, he does not specifically comment on it here.
2. “The new wine supposed to have been used on the day of Pentecost would make drunk, and that used in the Lord’s Supper by the Corinthians made drunk.” The word translated “new wine” in Acts 2:13 is gleukos. The word “new” is not in the text; it was probably chosen because it referred actually to (and would be better translated as) “sweet wine.” Why, then did the translators choose new? The reason probably is that the wine that was fresh from the grape was not intoxicating. The new would also be the sweetest; so the two concepts were equal in their association.
Gleukos [1098] is used only on this occasion in the New Testament, but it is related to glukus, which is used four times and translated “sweet” three of those times (James 3:11-12; Rev. 10:9-10). In James 3: 12, it is translated in the King James as “fresh” and contrasted with salt water. The idea in either word form, then, is “sweet, fresh, new.”
But why would the crowd say that the apostles were “full of new wine”? Understandably, when they heard the apostles speaking in different languages, they might assume that they had consumed too much alcohol and accuse them of being drunk—but drunk on “sweet wine”? McGarvey, in his Original Commentary on Acts, citing Hackett, suggests that a process was used to allow the wine to become powerfully intoxicating yet maintain its sweetness (27).
Another explanation is possible, and that is that the critics of the apostles are using hyperbole (exaggeration) to add to the jeer. In other words, these people sound so strange, they must be drunk—yes, and on sweet wine at that. Those who jeered in Nehemiah’s day did something similar: “Whatever they build, if even a fox goes up on it, he will break down their wall” (Neh. 4:3). This would not actually happen; this kind of exaggeration simply expresses the contempt of God’s enemies. So the charge leveled in Acts 2 may not have been made seriously.
What about the charge that the Lord’s Supper made the Corinthians drunk? The verse in question reads: “For in eating, each one takes his supper ahead of the others; and one is hungry and another is drunk” (1 Cor. 11:21). It is certain that methuo [3184] and its cognates [3178, 3182, 3183] usually refer to drunkenness. Methuo itself is used seven times in the New Testament; five of them refer to intoxication, but the other two refer to being filled in the sense of being sated, not inebriated. The other passage involves the wedding feast of Cana where the master of the feast says that the good wine is usually served first “and when the guests have well drunk,” then the inferior wine is brought out, but the best (that which Jesus made) had been saved for last in this case.
Some have actually taken the position that the wedding guests were drunk and that Jesus made them more intoxicating wine so they could become even more smashed. This writer has zero tolerance for such a worthless notion. In order to believe such an error, one would have to first believe that Mary, a woman so virtuous and morally pure as to be selected as the mother of the Lord, saw the wedding guests stumbling around and demanded that her Son make even more of the intoxicating stuff so that what—they should pass out entirely?
And Jesus, Who was free of sin, then contributed to their drunken revelry by serving as a stumbling block and putting liquid temptation in their way? Such actions ought to strain even the credulity of hardened sinners. In John 2, the host of the wedding had embarrassingly run out of the juice of the grape. Everyone had drunk nearly their fill. They were sated rather than inebriated, but they still wanted more. Jesus made more (plenty more), and the problem was taken care of. To insist that methuo here means drunken rather than filled with drink is to open oneself up to a host of problems.
Likewise, the Corinthians were not drunk, and the contrast in the verse clarifies the problem. One was hungry and another was well filled, sated, well drunk. If the Corinthians were actually getting drunk during the Lord’s Supper, can anyone imagine that the apostle would have remained silent about it? He rebuked them for all their other sins. Would Paul have let this sin (one that is included in several lists) go unchallenged? His remonstrance is due to their unwillingness to share food and drink with their brethren—not for being soused. Lipscomb and Sewell do not appear to have given sufficient thought to these matters.
3. “No reproof was given for the wine that does intoxicate.” The assumption is made that they used intoxicating wine, and then it is noted that there is no reproof for doing so. No reproof would be needed for another reason—if what they used was not intoxicating in the first place.
4. “Then, again, Timothy clearly, as a matter of conscience, refused to use wine because of its evil influences. Paul told him to take a little for his frequent sickness.” If Paul does refer to the intoxicating beverage, all that the passage would do is authorize the fermented wine as a medicine (many of our modern-day medicines have an alcoholic content). But many are not willing to concede that Paul means anything other than the juice of the grape, which by itself has good effects upon the stomach. Lipscomb assumes that Timothy did not want to drink fermented wine because of his conscience (drinking something alcoholic), but it could just as easily be the case that he did not wish to do so because of the association it had. Others might think he was imbibing in something fermented; to avoid anyone drawing that conclusion, he simply abstained from it altogether.
“The theory that says unfermented juice of the grape was used says this is harmless in general use. Timothy did not think the wine of that day was harmless; neither did Paul. It was intoxicating, else it could not lead the brother into sin.” The same answer in the preceding section applies. No one said that intoxicating wine was harmless—that is the reason to avoid even association with it. Also, the text does not say that Timothy was in danger of being led into sin. If he were tempted by alcohol, the worst thing Paul could have suggested was that he drink “a little.” A little often leads to a lot.
5. “Good, clever people spend time and much research and ingenuity in striving to fix up a theory that will banish fermented wine from the Lord’s table.” The question should not be one of, “Does the New Testament banish fermented wine from the Lord’s table?” As always, the question should be, “Does the New Testament authorize the use of fermented wine at the Lord’s table?” Where is the passage that convinces us without a doubt that Jesus or His church used intoxicating wine to observe a holy remembrance of His death? Assumptions are not proof.
6. “A few will take the position under stress of the evil of intemperance; but the consensus of the learned and the common sense of those who study the Bible hold to the idea that is [sic, the word should be it] was fermented wine, for only fermented wine is free from the leaven or ferment. The fermentation works out the ferment.” As mentioned previously, Patton had done considerable research and published his results in 1874. Lipscomb states no reason for failing to recognize the arguments of those who disagreed with him. His last argument is unintelligible. Fermentation works out the ferment? No, the damage is already done. Is this equivalent to saying that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, but once the whole lump is leavened, we need not worry any longer? Of course not! The leavening agent has already done its work! The bread is leavened! Lips-comb continues in this same vein with respect to the second question, but these words should be sufficient to answer whatever point he was being made.
If Intoxicating, Could the Supper Be Now Observed
Properly by the Substitution of a Nonintoxicant?
What a great question! If we “think beyond doubt” that the fruit of the vine “was intoxicating,” then how could brethren use anything else? Notice the inconsistency in the reply: “While I am sure that the fermented juice of the grape was used, I am not sure that the presence of the intoxicating property is an essential element of the wine to be used.” Why not? He will answer that we are safer to use unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used; so if we know that He used intoxicating wine, why are we not safer to use fermented wine? Lipscomb knew that such a condemnation would not set well with brethren; so he crawfished on this one.
He says rightly: “It is never called wine in connection with the Supper. The juice of the grape was the thing used, the fruit of the vine in the cup.” Nothing suggests fermentation. Here he goes off again into the fermentation argument of number six (above). So, while not condemning the non-intoxicating juice, he says he thinks it is safer to use that which has been fermented, “just as Christ and the apostles used it…” (667-668). His “proof” only consisted of his opinion, and some of those were wrong (see #2).
Was It an Accident that the Bread Used
On the Occasion of the Institution of the Supper
Was Unleavened? If Not an Accident, Do You Think
a Proper Observance Can Be Had Now
With Leavened Bread (668)?
1. “… There is no doubt but the first supper was served with the unleavened bread of the passover [sic]. It grew out of the passover [sic].” This point is entirely correct. The Jews were not supposed to have leaven anywhere near their houses at the time of this feast. Jesus and the apostles used unleavened bread for a certainty. Why would someone insist that the bread is unleavened but that the wine was leavened (fermented)? Would it not be a matter of consistency that both would be free from defilement? In fact, Lipscomb unwittingly made this comparison himself in his answer to the second question, when he wrote, “…but the ferment—the leaven—is there and active, none the less” (668). He is talking abut the fruit of the vine and fermentation—yet compares it to leaven. Yet he did not realize the inconsistency of leavened grape juice and unleavened bread.
“… The use of the leavened bread grows out of the indifference that neglects to prepare for the observance for the supper.” This may be true, or it might be that men just do not care and do not think it makes any difference. Some have made the argument that Jesus used unleavened bread simply because it was handy and that the bread is the important part. Paul writes that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). He was the spotless Lamb of God. His body and blood were pure, also, or else He could not have been sacrificed for our sins. Why then would we want to use anything corrupted to represent Him? The bread is unleavened (untainted by leaven), and the fruit of the vine is unfermented. It is true that what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5 is metaphorical, but the metaphor is based on what they knew about the Lord’s Supper.
“It is important in all service to God to be on the safe side—that about which there can be no doubt. If a man will always start to act on this principle, he will never wander from God, and all who act on this principle will walk together in harmony and peace. Let us all resolve to be on the safe side in all religious service.” While all of us would agree with this conclusion, we may not find agreement on what is “safe.” In the judgment of many, the safe thing is to use the unleavened bread and the pure juice of the grape as part of the Lord’s supper. But for Lipscomb and Sew-ell, the “safe” position called for unleavened bread and fermented wine.
What do we know? We know that unleavened bread was definitely used during the Passover feast. Scripture does not say that juice of the grape was fermented or unfermented, although the usual word, wine, is never used of it. The New Testament uses either the cup or the fruit of the vine, which could be significant. We know that people in the first century had methods of keeping the fruit of the vine fresh and free from fermentation. If the bread representing Christ’s body had to be free from contaminants, why should not the fruit of the vine representing His blood likewise be pure?
If some insist that the cup be fermented, then they cannot rightly fellowship those who use the fresh juice. It would be sad to form a division—especially over a position (the intoxicated version) that cannot be proven or established in the New Testament. The body of Christ is one and is not to be divided. Paul wrote to the brethren that they all be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Unity is more important than opinion or personalities.