Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 295

2026 Convention Workbook
260 
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
/four.lnum/one.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
of unfermented grape juice, raisin tea, or diluted grape syrup” (Commentary on 
Matthew, [p. 1007]). The point is that “fruit of the vine” is a technical term which 
in the stated contexts can have no other meaning than wine. The church has never, 
from that day forward, felt at liberty to alter the solemn testament given by Christ 
in conjunction with the bread and the wine of the Sacrament (cf. Matt. 28:20; Gal. 
3:15). Whenever such altering or substitution was introduced, it was promptly re-
pudiated, lest any doubt be cast upon the validity of the sacrament as Christ in-
stituted it.
In an article dealing with the “Archaeology of the Sacraments” (CTM, X [1939], p. 
328), P. E. Kretzmann avers: “There never was any doubt in the minds of the teach-
ers of the Church as to the meaning of the expression [fruit of the vine]. For this 
reason they resented the use of any substitute for wine.” The consensus is virtually 
unbroken. The chief quibble seems to have been whether water was to be added 
to the wine. This Jewish custom was followed later in the Roman Church, on the 
grounds that this action symbolized the uniting of the people with Christ in the 
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 beau-
tifully 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 
“offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine” (FC VII 64). Countless other 
references in the Confessions attest the same fact.
Luther’s many writings on the Sacrament of the Altar also bespeak the same con-
sistency of usage. There was no substitute for wine in the Sacrament. For Luther, 
of course, Christ’s precious gift of His true body and blood in the Sacrament was 
the pre-eminent thing, but never apart from the stated bread and wine. He advised 
those who had doubts or misgivings about receiving both kinds in the Sacrament 
to forego reception for the time being. That they could do without sinning (St. L. 
/four.lnum/two.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
22, 1862; 21a, 608). He noted, too, that the Sacramentarians, for all their wild no-
tions concerning the meaning of the Sacrament, were at least agreed on one point, 
viz., that the bread was bread, and the wine, wine (St. L. 20, 1773). While he consid-
ered it an adiaphoron whether water was mixed with the wine, Luther’s personal 
emphasis was on natural wine, without additional diluting or mixing with water 
(St. L. 19, 258). Luther noted that the Scriptures did not specify whether the wine 
should be red or white (though it was to be of or from the grape vine), nor whether 
the bread was to be of wheat or barley flour or another grain (St. L. 20, 188). These 
matters were adiaphora, as were also the quantity and shape of the host or bread, 
manner of distribution, and other externals or usages connected therewith.
Sometime during the winter of 1542–43 Luther was asked whether a sick person, 
wishing to have the Sacrament but unable because of nausea to use wine, could be 
given something else in place of the wine. According to Kaspar Heydenreich, who 
recorded the conversation, Luther replied (WA 74, TR 5, 5509; emphasis added):
The question has often been put to me; but I have always re-
sponded 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?
Clearly Luther rejected any idea of substitution for the materia terrestris. Hence the 
barbed reductio ad absurdum above, suggesting that then a person take or receive 
nothing and just simply believe that he has received something.
Luther’s stance, as also that of the Confessions, is upheld by all Lutheran theo-
logians. (Cf. Baier-Walther, Compendium, p. 498; N. Hunnius, Epitome, p. 208; F. 
Pieper, Christian Dogmatics 3, p. 354; T. Engelder, Popular Symbolics, p. 93; J. T. Muel-
ler, Christian Dogmatics, p. 525; Ad. Hoenecke, Dogmatik 4, p. 115; E. Hove, Christian 
Doctrine, pp. 340f; et al.) Martin Chemnitz, the Lutheran Church’s greatest theolo-
gian in the generation after Luther, wrote definitively of the Sacrament of the Altar 
/four.lnum/three.lnum
The Lutheran Church/emdash.lnumMissouri Synod
in his Enchiridion, in his famous Examen Concilii Tridentini, and in his beautiful De 
Coena Sacra. As with Luther there is no question in Chemnitz’s mind as to the pre-
scribed elements, bread and wine; Holy Scripture clearly teaches them.
Nor ought the question be raised for dispute in our day. Those who do so, that is, 
argue that “fruit of the vine” should also allow for the use of grape juice, processed 
or unprocessed, are clearly making this suggestion for other reasons than on Scrip-
tural grounds. The idea of insinuating or substituting grape juice (or something 
else) for wine is of sectarian background, stemming specifically from religious 
bodies which pledge total abstinence from all liquids that have alcoholic content.
There is no ground for the notion that the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper con-
tributes to alcoholism or even threatens the so-called alcoholic. The sin of drunk-
enness, like adultery, homosexuality, etc., is clearly exposed in Scripture as serious 
(1 Cor. 6:10); but the source of the evil in each such case of sin is man’s own de-
praved, evil heart. Even though some may argue on scientific grounds that certain 
individuals are naturally and constitutionally more inclined to alcoholism, for ex-
ample, than others, this still would not remove the onus of sin. By virtue of his 
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 under-
scores 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 
/four.lnum/four.lnum
Proper Administration of the Lord’s Supper
to be for our spiritual well-being, for the forgiveness of sins.
Any substitution for the Scripturally stated elements is especially offensive be-
cause it yields to the intrusion of Reformed theology and practice into the Lutheran 
Church. It is to be expected that those who hold the Lord’s Supper to be a sym-
bolical eating and drinking will have little difficulty substituting other elements 
for the bread and wine. This has been true in some Reformed circles. Needless to 
say, the strength, or alcoholic content of the wine, is not the issue, as long as natural 
grape wine is used. This, therefore, rules out some bizarre concoctions, or mix-
tures, which are sometimes sold as wine, such as grape juice mixed with alcoholic 
spirits distilled from grain.
We strongly urge, therefore, lest confusion be multiplied, offense be given, con-
sciences and peace within the church be disturbed, that Lutheran pastors and 
people continue a consistent practice in support of the Scripturally designated 
elements in Holy Communion, especially as regards the use of wine, “the fruit of 
the vine,” which Christ instituted when He gave to His church this new testament 
in His blood.