May 11, 2007

Mohler On The Supper

Recently I have been having a difficulty alligning myself with those Baptist churches that discriminate against all Christian social drinkers and who have gone to such an extreme on abstinance that they do not use fermented wine in the Lord's Supper, although it was fine with Christ and the early church, and fine with our Baptist forefathers. I have often said that men are prone to go to an extreme themselves when they are opposing an extreme. I recently posted some information on Baptist "Church Covenants" and the "abstinance clause," making the comment that these churches violate Paul's injunctive, "Let no one judge you in regard to food or drink." (Col. 2: 16) I also plan to post more notes on this topic. What is a little ironic is that I was listening, this past Wednesday, to the Al Mohler daily radio program when the question of using fermented wine and unleavened bread came up for Dr. Mohler to address. Here is the transcript.


“We have another question that came in, and its another one of these interesting questions, that you know has to come out of some very fascinating conversation in terms of the local church. Here’s the question.”

“We have a Christian friend who has been attending our church for many years. He will not partake of communion as he believes the elements should be what Jesus used – wine and unleavened bread. He believes that unleavened bread symbolizes purity and that wine was used by the church until prohibition. What should our response be to him or is he more correct than we are?”

"I guess the next question would be, if we change the original elements why could we not change it to other items as pizza and coke?"

Raymond asked that question.

"Raymond, let me tell you about that last point, you haven’t come up with something that college students or someone else hasn’t tried before. Back in the 1970's, back during the Jesus People Movement, they were calling communion just about anything, with whatever elements they had at hand. The point, I think, of obedience to Christ, in the Supper, is to do what Jesus commanded us to do, and he gave us two elements. The elements were wine and bread. Now, when the New Testament uses the word “wine” (oinos), it refers to just what you’re thinking of as “wine.” But, it was not a highly fermented grape beverage and we know that from first century sources and we know that from the practice of the time. But, it was grape juice. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with using grape juice, either fermented or not, in terms of the Lord’s Supper, in terms of obedience to the command of Christ. The fermentation can’t be the issue.

The issue of bread. Did Jesus use unleavened bread? Well we know, in all likelihood, that he must have. Because, after all, during the Passover that is what the Jews would have used. But that does not appear to be the central point in terms of the bread. He refers to it as bread and wine and so do we when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper even if its leavened bread and grape juice. I don’t see that as a problem."


Al Mohler Radio Program Wed. May 9th, 2007

I could not believe that a man of the caliber of Dr. Mohler could take such a position. Shocking! As you can see, he did not really answer the man's question. All he gave us was expressions as it "does not appear to be the central point," and "I don't see that as a problem," and "I see nothing wrong whatsoever with using grape juice."

Yes, he could condemn the "Jesus People" for using pizza or any other "elements at hand," for a Communion Service, because the elements were not simply bread or grape juice, but he sees no problem with the bread being "leavened" or the wine being "unfermented."

Has Dr. Mohler forgotten these passages?


"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (I Cor. 5: 7,8)

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (I Cor. 10: 16,17)

The church, being the "body of Christ," is typified, as is his physical body, in the "one loaf of bread." That "one loaf" is "UNLEAVENED"! Leaven is sin and corruption, in the Scriptures, as Dr. Mohler ought to know.


"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye 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 brake 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 oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew 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 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. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."
(I Cor. 11: 20-34)

How a man can read this, admit that the wine here was fermented, admit here that the bread was unleavened, and then say, "well, I really don't think it is important to use exactly the same elements as Christ," is beyond me to understand, especially from someone like Dr. Mohler.

When we use leavened bread, we are affirming that the body of Christ, both his physical body and his mystical body (the church) are impure and corrupt! That loaf is a pure loaf! Dr. Mohler thinks it not important to have pure bread?

We also use unleavened wine, wine that is fully fermented, made pure, for how else could it be symbolic of Christ's blood, the life of the church, and literally be the "pure blood of the grape"?

Again, I will have more to say on this, in upcoming blogs, and I do plan to send a copy of this blog to Dr. Mohler together with others I plan to write on this issue.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

“After the thanksgiving, it is very clear that our Divine Lord broke the bread. We scarcely know what kind of bread was used on that occasion; it was probably the thin passover cake of the Jews; but there is nothing said in Scripture about the use of leavened or unleavened bread, and therefore it
matters not which we use. Where there is no ordinance, there is no
obligation; and we are, therefore, left free to use the bread. which it is our custom to eat.” – C.H. Spurgeon