When “Literalists” Stop Reading Literally: A Baptist Tension on Wine and the Lord’s Supper

Baptists have always prided themselves on being people of the Book. When it comes to baptism, we insist on the plain reading of the text. Baptize means immerse, so we immerse. No sprinkling, no pouring, no creative interpretations. We take it as it stands.

But strangely, when the same interpretive method gets brought to the Lord’s Supper, the consistency often disappears. Suddenly the “plain reading” gets set aside for a more flexible, traditional, or culturally safe interpretation.

What Does “Fruit of the Vine” Actually Mean?

The phrase “fruit of the vine” appears in all three Synoptic accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. And for centuries, everyone understood exactly what that phrase referred to: wine. Fermented grape wine. Not grape juice, not boiled must, not Welch’s.

The phrase was a well-known Jewish liturgical expression tied directly to wine used at Passover. There was no confusion in the first century. No debate. No alternative interpretation.

But some modern Baptists ask, “Well, technically, fruit grows on vines… couldn’t this mean something else? Couldn’t it mean grape juice? Or any juice?”

It’s an interesting question, but historically and linguistically the answer is straightforward.

Does “Fruit of the Vine” Ever Mean Anything Other Than Wine?

Short answer: No. Not in Scripture. Not in Jewish usage. Not in the early church. Not in any credible Greek lexicon.

There were no watermelons in the Passover cup. No blueberry juice. No fig smoothies. And definitely no chemically preserved grape juice invented in the 1800s.

In the ancient world, “fruit of the vine” was simply a reverent way to refer to wine, the same way we might say “bread of heaven.” It was a liturgical phrase, not a category of produce.

To suggest otherwise would be like arguing that when Jesus says He is the “Good Shepherd” He might be speaking of llama herding because llamas can be shepherded too. Sure, anything is possible if you stretch the language hard enough. But that’s not how normal people speak, and it’s not how Scripture speaks.

Why Baptists Started Redefining It

The shift didn’t happen because of the Bible. It happened because of cultural movements in the 1800s, especially the Temperance Movement and the invention of pasteurized grape juice by Thomas Welch. Before that, Baptists everywhere used wine for communion. Charles Spurgeon used wine. John Gill used wine. The early American Baptists used wine.

The change wasn’t theological, it was cultural.

So we end up with this odd tension:

When interpreting baptism
– We insist on the plain reading
– We reject tradition that contradicts Scripture
– We refuse to bend words to fit cultural preferences

But when interpreting wine
– We soften the plain meaning
– We reinterpret the words to avoid discomfort
– We accept a tradition that didn’t exist before the 19th century

That inconsistency is worth noticing.

The Plain and Simple Reading of the Text

If Baptists really want to be consistent, the honest and straightforward reading of “fruit of the vine” is wine. Not because we want it to be, not because it’s trendy, but because that’s what the words meant when Jesus spoke them.

The burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to argue that every Jew at Passover misunderstood their own liturgical phrase until modern Baptists came along.

The Real Question: Will We Let Scripture Lead Us?

This isn’t ultimately about alcohol. It’s about interpretation. If we expect the world to take our Scripture seriousness seriously, then we should apply the same standard across the board.

Plain reading is plain reading.
Literal consistency is literal consistency.
And the “fruit of the vine” given by Christ to His disciples was not an ambiguous mystery beverage. It was wine.