WINE OR FRUIT OF THE VINE? (By the Late P.D. Ballard)

WINE OR FRUIT OF THE VINE? (By the Late P.D. Ballard) INTRODUCTION In recent weeks I have been called on to answer and give Bible proof for the use of grape juice in, the observance of the Lord s Supper. This has led me to a deeper study of the subject. Now I am more convinced than ever that grape juice (un-fermented) is the ingredient (along with unleavened bread) to be used and not fermented wine. I trust I shall be enabled to make this fact clear in this brief writing. Before entering into this study, I would like for you to remember that this is not a new subject for differences. Brethren have differed on this subject in the past two centuries at least, and I don't expect this pamphlet will settle all the differences. After we have read and heard all the differences, the questions still remain: should a Baptist Church (the Lord's church) use fermented wine in her communion services? Did Christ use such in the institution of the supper? Does the Bible teach that fermented wine is to be used with the unleavened (unfermented) bread? This is not to be answered by what so-and-so says, but by THUS SAITH THE LORD. Reader, I trust you will prayerfully read THUS SAITH THE LORD on this subject. The Author of this ordinance knows more about it than anyone else, so let's take His interpretation of the matter; for He has said: "If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?" John 8:46. THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER The first thing I would like for you to consider is, the Bible account of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Did Christ institute the Supper with wine or did He institute it with the fruit of the vine? The following is the account given by Matthew, Mark and Luke and Paul's quotation of the subject in I Corinthians: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matt. 26: 26-29). "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of THE FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Mark 14:23-25. "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and. said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the FRUIT OF THE VINE, until the kingdom of God shall come." Luke 22:17-18. "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." I

Cor. 11:25. The word "wine" does not appear in either of these four passages. The Greek word "oinos" (wine) does not appear in either passage. I believe there is a good reason why the word is not used in either passage: to keep us from being confused on what to use in the Lord's Supper. If the word "oinos" had been used, then one might think fermented wine is to be used, because "oinos" (wine) is used relative to fermented and unfermented wine. So the Lord placed the matter to where there should be no confusion on the ingredient used, for he did not use the word "oinos" in connection with the Lord's Supper. Another thing that is worthy of note here is, the writers of the word of God are in harmony on what is to be used in the Lord's Supper. Should we not concur with what they have said? Facts are, the vine never produces intoxicating drink. The fruit of the vine is not fermented or intoxicating, because there is no alcohol in the fruit of the vine. It is pure and health-giving; and is a beautiful emblem of the life and strength-giving grace of Jesus Christ. But three of the component parts of the fruit of the vine are destroyed by fermentation: GLUTEN, GUM and AROMA. This simply means that fermentation destroys parts of the ingredient that is to show forth the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Fermentation replaces these three component parts with alcohol, glycerine, etc., otherwise there would be no alcohol in the "fruit of the vine". NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES ON "WINE" CONSIDERED It is well that we again remind you that the Hebrew word "yam" (yayin) and the Greek word "oinos" or "oinon" refer to both: fermented and unfermented grape juice, but the Lord did not use either in speaking of the ingredient to be used in His Supper. Now to some new Testament passages: MATTHEW'S GOSPEL: "Neither do men put new wine (fresh grape juice) into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." 9:17, see Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37). The lesson of this text is, do that which is necessary to preserve the grape juice and the containers. The process in preserving the grape juice (a part of their nourishment) was done by boiling the grape juice and placing it into new bottles. The spiritual lesson contained herein is, the New Covenant and its ordinances were not placed into the old order (old covenant), which had served its purpose Heb. 8:7-8,13. For He formed an holy nation (the church or kingdom) in which to place His New Covenant and ordinances. Reader, there is absolutely no proof of the use of intoxicating wine in the above passage. Actually, "new wine" sometimes means grapes that are still on the vine. See Haggai 1:11 that speaks of a drought upon "new wine". How could a drought harm wine in a bottle? So the words "wine", "new wine" do not always allude to intoxicating drink. LUKE'S GOSPEL: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment and wounded him But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and WINE, and set him on his beast and took care of him." Luke 10:30-34. The above passage is used to teach that WINE (fermented) is to be used. If this was fermented wine it was not consumed with the mouth by the afflicted, for the passage

claims it was poured into his wounds. And it is for sure, it was not the Lord's Supper where this wine was used. Can anyone suppose or imagine that the wine used was intoxicating or alcoholic? Try pouring some alcohol into a fresh wound and see if you think the good Samaritan used intoxicating drink to comfort and ease the sufferer. JOHN'S GOSPEL: "And the third day there was a marriage at Cana in of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.... Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now," John 2:1,1,10. I have read Baptist (?) literature that claims this passage proves that fermented wine is usable in the Lord's Supper, for the literature contends that Christ turned the water into intoxicating drink. I deny that Jesus turned the water into fermented or intoxicating drink and here are a few proofs that verify my contention: FIRST, If the crowd was drunk (?) or intoxicated it was on the first wine consumed and not on the water Jesus turned into wine. V.10. They had "well drunk" before partaking of the wine made by our Lord. SECONDLY, The narrative does not say those at the wedding were drunk. It says, "when men have well drunk". These are words of the ruler at the feast. His advice is on how to serve a wedding feast. The ruler did not say the guests at the feast were drunk. Men must strain his words to get such an interpretation from what he said." The meaning of "well drunk" is, THEY HAD CONSUMED THE INFERIOR WINE. The ruler contends this was contrary to custom, for, according to custom, the inferior wine (fruit of the vine) is consumed last. THIRDLY, There are two types of wine: fermented and unfermented. Without any proof, men wish for us to believe that it was intoxicating wine that Jesus made. This may sound good to distillers, brewers and winebibbers, but it makes Jesus guilty of sin. Or, is it sin to make and give strong drink to others? See Isa. 28:7: Prov. 23:29-35. FOURTH: If the marriage at Cana was a drunken brawl, then Jesus was guilty of attending the wrong thing, and since He did not condemn the acts at the wedding, then He is telling us, by His silence, that such carrying on is the right thing to do. In fact Jesus encouraged drunkedness if He made and gave them intoxicating wine. Who can believe our innocent Savior did such? I must confess that I do not believe Jesus made or partook of that which He condemned in Prov. 20:1: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." If wine is a mocker, and it is, then what is he that makes and gives it to men? LASTLY, others seem to think this was fermented wine because it was better than the other. How could one get that idea if the other was also fermented, for it was the first wine that was "well drunk." The sense is, the first was inferior to that made by Jesus. After all, Jesus always does things better than men or nature and this is no exception. He produced better grape juice from water than men and nature from the vineyard. Now don't ignore these proofs by saying, "What difference does it make whether we use fermented or unfermented grape juice?" This would be proof that you cannot meet the arguments given. Jesus did not institute the Lord's Supper with fermented (leavened) juice; neither should we use such in communion services today. Let's follow the New Testament pattern. Let's use the same ingredients that Jesus used in instituting the Supper: unleavened bread and "fruit of the vine".

APOSTLE PAUL: "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much WINE, not greedy of filthy lucre"; I Tim. 3:8. Some seem to think this text permits deacons (and pastors, V.3) to drink intoxicating beverages, such as wine, but they claim Paul is warning such to not over do it, that is, be careful and not consume too much. I guess this is what the United Methodists thought when they recently gave their preachers the liberty to drink intoxicating drinks without violating one of their church laws. I wonder if Oral Robert's union with them caused this error. He joined them about this time or a little before. Does I Tim. 3:3,8 justify the use or consumption of fermented wine? The same apostle said "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit"; Eph. 5:18. This means that wine drinking and spirituality are not compatible. Do you desire spirituality in the church, especially in communion services? If so, don't bother with the wine cup. Again the apostle says, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink WINE, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Rom. 14:21. The use of WINE in the Lord's Supper is not only offensive to some, but could very easily start one on his road (or back on the road) to being a Wino, for Solomon contends wine is a mocker and deceiver. Suffice it to say, if the Christian may scripturally partake of intoxicating (fermented) wine in communion services, sacred as it is, then surely it is alright for them to drink of such at any other time. But Paul claims we should not give ourselves to that which offends our brethren. If twenty drinks will make one drunk, then one drink will make us l/20th drunk. If not, why not? If you desire to remain completely sober and not drunk to any degree, then leave the wine cup and other strong drink alone at all times; this includes communion services. Another scripture by Paul that seems to have some thinking that fermented wine is to be used in the Lord's Supper is, "Drink no longer water, but use a little WINE for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." I Tim. 5:23. WINE FOR THE STOMACH was a thickened grape juice, an unfermented syrup, that was used to strengthen the weak, says Pliny. This view is in line with what Paul was contending, for the wine he recommended was for INFIRMITIES of the stomach. Fermented or intoxicating drink is poisonous and would have hurt his stomach instead of helping it. Therefore Paul did not recommend intoxicating wine for his infirmities. Paul told Timothy to use wine for his stomach; it was thickened grape juice and not fermented wine. The Lord's Supper was not under consideration in this text. Besides, a winebibbing preacher would have made a poor example for people to follow; and Paul admonished Timothy to be an example to the believers. I Tim. 4:12. Reader, every distiller and winebibber would like for us to believe that Jesus turned the water into fermented wine and that Paul recommended such for Timothy's infirmities, but the passages sighted will not permit this interpretation. Our sinless Savior did not make that which He claims is a mocker and Paul did not recommend the use of such to a young preacher that is to be an example to believers. Therefore the use of fermented wine in the Lord's Supper has no place to set its foot on these passages. In fact, the Bible is very careful to inform us that leaders in the Cause of Christ are to be abstainers from wine or strong drink. CHRISTIANS ARE ABSTAINERS

When I say, "Christians are abstainers", I mean they are admonished to be so. I read where Noah, a preacher of righteousness, got drunk, but the Lord did not command it, neither did it please Him. The Bible is plain about the use of wine or strong drink. Leaders in the Cause of Christ are admonished more than once to abstain from strong drink, for its influence is misleading: "Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?" Prov. 23:29. Here is the answer: ''They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things." Prov. 23:30-33. Speaking of Noah and the WOE of wine, his drunken spree brought a curse on his offspring, for Noah said: "Cursed be Canaan." Gen. 9:25. This should cause any Baptist to blush when the wine cup (containing fermented wine) is passed during the communion service. 1. THE HIGH PRIEST AND HIS SONS WERE NOT TO PARTAKE OF INTOXICATING WINE. This is set forth in Lev. 10:8-9: "And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:" God had a good reason for admonishing Aaron and his sons to abstain from wine and strong drink, that they may be able to discern between clean and unclean; and to teach the statutes of the Lord. Vs. 10-11. The Old Testament priesthood was typical of the ministry under the New Covenant. I Cor. 9:13-14. The priests were not to partake of wine (Romish priests will not fit in here) under the Old Covenant, therefore the ministers under the New Testament are not to partake. The tabernacle of Moses was typical of the Lord's church, which He established while on earth. Heb. 8:2. The priests were not to enter the tabernacle with wine or strong drink on their breath, therefore the preachers are not to try to minister under the New Covenant unless they abstain from strong drink, especially in the services of the church in administering the Lord's Supper; for this is one of the most sacred services in the church. Priests of the Old Testament were abstainers of strong drink, why shouldn't we be; for we are under a BETTER COVENANT. Better things demand better efforts. 2. THE VOW OF A NAZARITE. Their vow to the services of God included the abstaining from strong drink. A Nazarite was one separated or sanctified for the Lord's service. Here is his or her vow: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord: He shall separate himself from WINE AND STRONG DRINK, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried." Numbers 6:2-3. It seems that God wanted to be sure that the Nazarite, one separated for the services of God, did not partake of any fermentation. The people of God under the New Testament are the sanctified of God. Heb. 10:14. They should be careful not to partake of wine and strong drink. Brethren, beware of fermentation!

3. JOHN THE BAPTIST did not partake of wine and strong drink, neither should Baptists of today. Here's what the angel said to John's father: "But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great (See Matt. 11:11) in the sight of the Lord, and shall DRINK NEITHER WINE NOR STRONG DRINK; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." Lk. 1:13-15. If God would have the first Baptist to abstain from WINE and STRONG DRINK, then why contend that Baptist churches should drink such in the observance of the Lord's Supper? If it is wrong to drink it out of church capacity, then surely it is wrong to drink it in the observance of the Lord's Supper, which ingredient symbolizes the shed blood of our divine Savior. I am told that a child gets its blood from its father. If this be so, then Christ's blood was divine, and a mocker (wine) cannot symbolize it. Water, and water alone, is the element used in baptism and "fruit of the vine" and unleavened bread are the elements to be used in communion services. Why do we use unleavened bread instead of soda crackers or something else? The answer is simple, UNLEAVENED BREAD IS THE ONLY KIND THEY HAD DURING THE PASSOVER, for leaven was not allowed in their houses at this time. This answers why they used unfermented juice in the Lord's Supper the night it was instituted: THEY HAD NO FERMENTATION IN THEIR HOUSES. This is enough to convince all, it seems to me, that Jesus did not use fermented wine when He instituted the Lord's Supper. Brethren, if we are going to preserve the ordinances of the church and keep them as they did in the apostolic days, then let's observe them as the Bible warrants. Let's be Baptists after the order of the first Baptist: abstain from wine and strong drink. 4. JESUS CHRIST, the Head and Founder of the New Testament church, where the ordinances are kept and observed (I Cor. 11:1-2), refused to drink wine as a pain reliever, much less as an ingredient in the sacred supper: "And they gave him to drink WINE mingled with myrrh: but he received it not." Mk. 15:23. Dr. John Gill claims the mixed drink was offered to intoxicate Christ so that His pains and suffering would not be so severe. Men of today would say: "What is wrong with wine and strong drink if you use it for medicine?" Jesus refused it and we are safe in following His example. People that drink intoxicating drink to kill pain will find their pains increasing and more liquor needed, for wine is a mocker and deceiver. Prov. 20:1. If we are going to claim Jesus as our Head and Founder, John the Baptist as the greatest born of woman, then why set our lips to drink that which they refused? We enjoy claiming Jesus as our Head and John as our kin, but it seems hard for us to teach and follow their practices. Another good reason why Jesus did not partake of the wine in His death was, "A little leaven (fermentation) leaven-eth the whole lump." I Cor. 5:6. A pure lump was essential in the sacrifice of Christ for us, therefore He refused the wine mixed with myrrh. If Jesus could not be accepted without abstaining from the leaven, then how do we expect to please God in a communion service where fermented (leavened) wine is used? Another Bible reason why Jesus refused the wine mingled with myrrh was, He was officiating as our High Priest on the cross, and the High Priest was not to partake of wine. Lev. 10:8-11. Also, there is another good reason why Jesus did not partake of the wine (if it was

intoxicating wine) He had already said: "wine is a mocker",." Prov. 20:1. And He had told His church that He would not again partake of "the fruit of the vine" until He observed it with them a new in the kingdom. This He fulfilled before His ascension. See the marginal rendering of Acts 1:4. REASONS FOR NOT USING WINE IN THE LORD'S SUPPER 1. The Bible specifies "fruit of the vine". Why use something the Bible does not specify? 2. The Greek word "oinos" (wine) is not used in connection with the Lord's Supper. If it was, it would still be a question whether or not he meant fermented wine, for the word' is used for fermented and unfermented wine. I Tim. 3.3,8; 5:23. 3. The bottle bearers (Butlers), '''he supplier of wines, a manservant in charge of wine and liquors in olden days, served fresh grape juice to their lord's, yet they were called BUTLERS, or "suppliers of wine". Gen. 40:11. "And Pharaohs cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh s hand." This shows that the Butlers served fresh pressed grape juice when serving wine to their lords. As I have said elsewhere in this writing, grape juice was a chief food among the Orients. Fermentation was one thing they combated in order to preserve the fruit of their vineyards. Why think they were accustomed to drinking intoxicating wine? 4. No wine was used at the Passover, for fermentation was forbidden. It was during this time that Jesus instituted His Supper. It would have been just as wrong to have leaven in the "fruit of the vine" as it would have to been in the bread. No leaven (fermentation) was allowed in their houses at the time the Lord's Supper was instituted. 5. Christ refused wine in His death. Mk. 15:23. Why use something He has refused in His death to portray His death? 6. Wine is a mocker. Why use a mocker to symbolize the shed blood of God's divine Son? 7. We are admonished to not look upon wine when it is red. Prov. 23:31. How can we show forth His death with an ingredient that is not to be looked upon? How can we picture His shed blood with an element we are not to look upon? If we look upon wine, we violate what God has said. If we fail to shew forth His death we are in error. So the best thing for the Lord's churches to do is, use the unleavened bread and unleavened "fruit of the vine". Use the elements that were used the night it was instituted: unleavened bread and unleavened juice. 8. We are admonished to use "fruit of the vine, and fruit from the vine has no alcohol in it. 9. John the Baptist, the first Baptist preacher, refused to drink wine. 10. The priests of the Old Testament were not to partake of wine and strong drink. The Levitical priesthood was typical of the ministry under the New Testament (I Cor. 9:13-14), therefore we should not partake of wine or strong drink Lev. 10:8-11. 11. Those that ministered about the tabernacle were not to drink wine and strong

drink. Lev. 10:8-11. The tabernacle was a type of the church. Heb. 8:2. Therefore, church members are not to partake of wine and strong drink. 12. Christ, our High Priest, instituted the Lord's Supper while He was keeping the law to a jot and tittle. If He should have used fermented wine at the institution of the supper, then the Jews could have rightfully accused Him of breaking the law, for no leaven (fermentation) was in their houses during passover. 13. The Jews were not commanded to have "fruit of the vine" at the Passover, much less fermented wine. So why accuse Jesus of using fermented wine at the supper? 14. Fermented wine was a rare thing in the days of Jesus on earth. The people used their vineyards for food and they boiled and bottled their grape juice to keep it from fermentation. When they opened the bottles of wine (grape juice) then were the additives added: water and sugar. Now why claim you are getting pure fruit of the vine when you purchase fermented wine with all its additives? 15. I am opposed to using fermented wine because fermentation takes three component parts from the "fruit of the vine": Aroma, Gum and Gluten. Christ was typified by the whole lamb that was offered in Egypt and the Lord's Supper is a symbol of His death, therefore we should use the fruit of the vine before it ferments and removes three component parts of the "fruit of the vine". 16. We oppose liquor stores. We claim to be abstainers from strong drink. Our church covenant plainly forbids the sale or use of intoxicating beverages. Shall we violate this by using fermented wine in communion services? 17. We teach our children that it is wrong to drink wine and other strong drinks. Shall we introduce them to such at the house of God during the sacred ordinance? This is reason enough to reject the use of fermented wine in the Lord's Supper. 18. We oppose the sale of liquor by the drink, but some would have us believe we should have it by the drink in the observance of the Lord's Supper. Alas! 19. We oppose the liquor traffic for making strong drink, but some would have us believe they must make such or else we will have to in order to have fermented wine to observe the Lord's Supper. Brethren, let's be consistent in the matter. If it is wrong for the liquor people to make wine, then it is wrong for us. If it is proper for us to drink at the Lord's Supper, then it surely is right for anyone else to drink. Anything good enough to be consumed at the Lord's Table is good enough to be consumed elsewhere. If not, why not? 20. Our practices at church services should not contradict the instruction we give our children at home. We teach them it is wrong to partake of wine and other strong drink, then let's not put the wine cup to their mouths at the Lord's Table. 21. The use of fermented wine in the Lord's Supper might cause a former Wino to return to his habit. Don't say this is impossible, for wine is a mocker and deceiver. Pro. 20:1. One drink calls for another. And wine drinking in communion services will not change the mocker and deceiver..the place consumed does not change its evil effects. Brethren, I think these twenty-one reasons should be enough to convince you that wine is not to be used in communion services, so now I shall endeavor to answer an argument or two that is offered in support of the use of wine in the Lord's Supper.

OPPONENTS ANSWERED There are two main arguments used by my opponents to teach that wine is the proper drink to use in the Lord's Supper. However, they do try to justify their practice by other scriptures. They refer to I Tim. 5:23, which I have already considered. They use John 2, where Christ turned water into wine, which I have already considered. Now I offer an answer to their two main arguments: 1. They claim grape juice is purified by fermentation. In other words, they claim the impurities of the grape juice is removed in the process of fermentation. I deny this and demand proof. Facts are, just the opposite is so. Fermentation destroys three component parts of the juice when it is transformed into alcoholic liquor. Thus the grape juice loses about all the essential qualities of "the fruit of the vine" by fermentation. Brethren, how can grape juice dispose of its impurities, if it has some, by fermentation? If the juice is in a closed container and disposes of its impurities in the container, then where do the impurities go? If the juice disposes of its impurities in a closed container, then where do they go? Where? Reader, you will find that grape juice is the most pure when taken from the vine. The process of boiling shrinks the bulk and makes the "fruit of the vine" more syrupy. Christ was tried in the fires of persecution and then offered. What a beautiful symbol is set forth in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper: "fruit of the vine" without any additives and unleavened bread. A beautiful picture of our sinless Savior. Fermented wine will no more picture His blood than a yeast biscuit will symbolize his body. Fermentation, yeast or leaven are not to be present in the ingredients used in the Lord's Supper. 2. I Cor. 11:21 is a favorite of those that believe in using wine in the Lord's Supper, for it claims some were "drunken". Therefore they claim it must have been intoxicating, else how would some have been drunken? I answer this by saying, they were not observing the Lord's Supper when they got drunk. They were eating the AGAPE (love-feast) which was their custom in those days. This is where the drunkenness took place, not at the Lord's Supper. This AGAPE took place before the observance of the Lord's Supper. Another good reason for believing the intoxication of some took place without the elements used in the Lord's Supper is, Paul said such eating, where there is partiality, should be done in the home. V.22. This is not speaking of the Lord's Supper, for Paul is speaking of that which can be observed out of church capacity, in their houses. If they were drunken by what they got in the Lord's Supper, then they must have used a lot of wine in the communion service. The feast where one is "hungry" and another is "drunken" is not the Lord's Supper and Paul claims a church that is in this kind of state cannot eat the Lord's Supper. V. 20. So if the fellow got his strong drink at the Lord's Supper, which he did not, then Paul condemned such carrying on. He let them know that such eating and drinking was not to be carried on the house of God. So it was at the AGAPE (love-feast) where the gluttony and intemperate drinking took place: not at the Lord's Table in the observance of the Lord's Supper. Why they had the AGAPE before the Lord's Supper, I do not know. But it was suppose to be a time of fellowship, singing and scripture reading. It appears their get together was about like some we hear of today, only the scripture reading is forbidden.

Reader, I will close this part of the discussion by saying, WHY HAVE UNLEAVENED BREAD AND LEAVENED FRUIT JUICE? WHY IS THE BREAD TO BE UNLEAVENED AND THE DRINK LEAVENED (fermented, containing yeast)? And, HOW COULD JESUS HAVE USED FERMENTED WINE WHEN SUCH WAS NOT IN THEIR HOUSES DURING THE PASSOVER? CONCLUSION Reader, I have now come to the end of my honest effort to set forth the facts concerning the drink to be used in the Lord's Supper. I have labored hard to clearly set forth what the Bible teaches on the subject. I trust my effort has not been in vain. I hope it edifies the children of God, strengthens the Lord's churches (Baptist churches), and glorifies THE GREAT SHEPHERD OF THE SHEEP. I have endeavored to be plain and firm, but yet kind, in this effort. I wrote in hopes of clarifying and not confusing the issue. I do want to teach and practice what is set forth in the word of God, and I wish to see others doing the same. Now don't tell someone the composition of this booklet is poor, for the writer admits that himself; but I do believe the doctrine presented is Biblical and safe for Baptist churches to follow. I must bid you farwell and get about other pressing matters. I trust you have enjoyed the pamphlet. P. D. Ballard