LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 260

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

260

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

of unfermented grape juice, raisin tea, or diluted grape syrup” (Commentary on

22, 1862; 21a, 608). He noted, too, that the Sacramentarians, for all their wild no-

Matthew, [p. 1007]). The point is that “fruit of the vine” is a technical term which

tions concerning the meaning of the Sacrament, were at least agreed on one point,

in the stated contexts can have no other meaning than wine. The church has never,

viz., that the bread was bread, and the wine, wine (St. L. 20, 1773). While he consid-

from that day forward, felt at liberty to alter the solemn testament given by Christ

ered it an adiaphoron whether water was mixed with the wine, Luther’s personal

in conjunction with the bread and the wine of the Sacrament (cf. Matt. 28:20; Gal.

emphasis was on natural wine, without additional diluting or mixing with water

3:15). Whenever such altering or substitution was introduced, it was promptly re-

(St. L. 19, 258). Luther noted that the Scriptures did not specify whether the wine

pudiated, lest any doubt be cast upon the validity of the sacrament as Christ in-

should be red or white (though it was to be of or from the grape vine), nor whether

stituted it.

the bread was to be of wheat or barley flour or another grain (St. L. 20, 188). These

In an article dealing with the “Archaeology of the Sacraments” (CTM, X [1939], p.

matters were adiaphora, as were also the quantity and shape of the host or bread,

328), P. E. Kretzmann avers: “There never was any doubt in the minds of the teach-

manner of distribution, and other externals or usages connected therewith.

ers of the Church as to the meaning of the expression [fruit of the vine]. For this

Sometime during the winter of 1542–43 Luther was asked whether a sick person,

reason they resented the use of any substitute for wine.” The consensus is virtually

wishing to have the Sacrament but unable because of nausea to use wine, could be

unbroken. The chief quibble seems to have been whether water was to be added

given something else in place of the wine. According to Kaspar Heydenreich, who

to the wine. This Jewish custom was followed later in the Roman Church, on the

recorded the conversation, Luther replied (WA 74, TR 5, 5509; emphasis added):

grounds that this action symbolized the uniting of the people with Christ in the

The question has often been put to me; but I have always responded as follows: Nothing else but wine should be used. If wine
cannot be taken, then let the matter rest that way, in order
that nothing new is done or introduced. Must a person who
is dying receive the sacrament yet? In times past it was said
that he who received the one kind might consider himself to
have partaken of both kinds. Why do we not rather say: If you
receive nothing, consider yourself to have received both?

priest’s celebration of the Mass and on the fact that blood and water flowed from
the side of the crucified Christ.
The Lutheran Confessions stand as a phalanx behind Luther’s simple and beautifully clear definition in the Small Catechism, “under . . . the wine.” There is
not a single concession, nor any implication, that anything else was ever to be
substituted or understood for “wine.” The Small and Large Catechisms enjoy the
support on this point of the Augsburg Confession (Article X), the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession (Article X), the Smalcald Articles (III, vi), and the brilliant
exposition and defense of the Lord’s Supper in the Formula of Concord and its
Epitome (Article VII). There is total concurrence that in the Lord’s Supper Christ

Clearly Luther rejected any idea of substitution for the materia terrestris. Hence the

“offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine” (FC VII 64). Countless other

barbed reductio ad absurdum above, suggesting that then a person take or receive

references in the Confessions attest the same fact.

nothing and just simply believe that he has received something.

Luther’s many writings on the Sacrament of the Altar also bespeak the same con-

Luther’s stance, as also that of the Confessions, is upheld by all Lutheran theo-

sistency of usage. There was no substitute for wine in the Sacrament. For Luther,

logians. (Cf. Baier-Walther, Compendium, p. 498; N. Hunnius, Epitome, p. 208; F.

of course, Christ’s precious gift of His true body and blood in the Sacrament was

Pieper, Christian Dogmatics 3, p. 354; T. Engelder, Popular Symbolics, p. 93; J. T. Muel-

the pre-eminent thing, but never apart from the stated bread and wine. He advised

ler, Christian Dogmatics, p. 525; Ad. Hoenecke, Dogmatik 4, p. 115; E. Hove, Christian

those who had doubts or misgivings about receiving both kinds in the Sacrament

Doctrine, pp. 340f; et al.) Martin Chemnitz, the Lutheran Church’s greatest theolo-

to forego reception for the time being. That they could do without sinning (St. L.

gian in the generation after Luther, wrote definitively of the Sacrament of the Altar
41

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

42
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper

in his Enchiridion, in his famous Examen Concilii Tridentini, and in his beautiful De

to be for our spiritual well-being, for the forgiveness of sins.

Coena Sacra. As with Luther there is no question in Chemnitz’s mind as to the pre-

Any substitution for the Scripturally stated elements is especially offensive be-

scribed elements, bread and wine; Holy Scripture clearly teaches them.

cause it yields to the intrusion of Reformed theology and practice into the Lutheran

Nor ought the question be raised for dispute in our day. Those who do so, that is,

Church. It is to be expected that those who hold the Lord’s Supper to be a sym-

argue that “fruit of the vine” should also allow for the use of grape juice, processed

bolical eating and drinking will have little difficulty substituting other elements

or unprocessed, are clearly making this suggestion for other reasons than on Scrip-

for the bread and wine. This has been true in some Reformed circles. Needless to

tural grounds. The idea of insinuating or substituting grape juice (or something

say, the strength, or alcoholic content of the wine, is not the issue, as long as natural

else) for wine is of sectarian background, stemming specifically from religious

grape wine is used. This, therefore, rules out some bizarre concoctions, or mix-

bodies which pledge total abstinence from all liquids that have alcoholic content.

tures, which are sometimes sold as wine, such as grape juice mixed with alcoholic

There is no ground for the notion that the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper con-

spirits distilled from grain.

tributes to alcoholism or even threatens the so-called alcoholic. The sin of drunk-

We strongly urge, therefore, lest confusion be multiplied, offense be given, con-

enness, like adultery, homosexuality, etc., is clearly exposed in Scripture as serious

sciences and peace within the church be disturbed, that Lutheran pastors and

(1 Cor. 6:10); but the source of the evil in each such case of sin is man’s own de-

people continue a consistent practice in support of the Scripturally designated

praved, evil heart. Even though some may argue on scientific grounds that certain

elements in Holy Communion, especially as regards the use of wine, “the fruit of

individuals are naturally and constitutionally more inclined to alcoholism, for ex-

the vine,” which Christ instituted when He gave to His church this new testament

ample, than others, this still would not remove the onus of sin. By virtue of his

in His blood.

sinful nature man is prone to all manner of sin, but Scripture nowhere allows us
to teach that man is, as it were, biologically programmed by God to be so and so.
This would virtually remove from man the responsibility for his sin and place it
on God, something totally repugnant to Scriptural teaching. We may be sure that
Christ, who knew perfectly what was in man (John 2:25), would not have instituted
anything, including the Lord’s Supper and the use of wine, if it in any way would
contribute to man’s delinquency. The Apostle Paul’s pastoral practice also underscores this fact (l Cor. 11). The wine in the Lord’s Supper threatens no sinner who
comes in repentance and faith, but consoles and lifts him up with the precious gift
of the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins and gives him strength for godly
living. This is the only teaching Scripture supports.
Those who simply “prefer” to receive grape juice instead of wine should be led to
see that their “preference” is in violation of Scripture’s own clear teaching and that
they are thereby making the Sacrament an uncertain matter, if in fact not invalid.
Moreover, it is to be feared that such tampering with the Sacrament may in the
final analysis involve a deeper error, the relegating of the Lord’s Supper to a mere
memorial meal instead of the blessed means of grace that Christ has constituted it
43

2026 Convention Workbook

44