# Fresh Water vs Salt Water Grape Juice vs Wine



## Coram Deo (Sep 21, 2007)

Well my feeling paid off..... When my friend asked about Salt water and Baptism, he was alluding to Grape Juice vs. Wine in the Lord's Supper...

He Said "Yes, you saw it. I would say fresh and salt water are as different as wine and grape juice but not unleavened bread and PBJ."

Now I know Wine is not Grape Juice and Keith Mathison said the same thing in his book "Given for You". But how do I prove that wine is not Grape Juice.... Would I talk about the properties of Wine? Like the ability to gladden the heart of man that grape juice can not? The fermentation? How do I prove this Scientifically?

Salt Water and Fresh Water as the same properties but when grape juice ferments into Wine, Wine has different properties....

All you famous Puritan WineBibblers, Any thoughts...


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 21, 2007)

*Bump*


----------



## Larry Bump (Sep 25, 2007)

thunaer said:


> *Bump*




What?
My sense is that the element in communion is "fruit of the vine" which would allow wine or grape juice exclusively. As abstaining from wine in defense of a weaker brother is allowed (I mean commanded) it seems that juice in communion is not *wrong*, but it *is *irregular.
It should continue until the recalcitrant (over-scrupulous) brethren are convinced of the truth, then proper wine should be used.

Wine is seen to be the proper element as it was unquestionably what was used in OT Passover celebrations.

Larry


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 25, 2007)

I disagree.... Here is why and the answer I finally came up with on my own to my friend.....

Fruit of the Vine is a Jewish Liturgical Expression that only ever meant Wine, never Grape Juice.... In the context of the day when Christ used that expression it was only ever meant was wine..... The seder used Fruit of the Vine to only mean Wine... So we must interpret what Christ meant by the context of the day..... Also the weaker brother passage does not work here, no element that Christ commanded in worship can be a stumbling block to another....

Now is Wine different then Grape Juice, yes... Here is my response to my friend....

As Keith Mathison said in his book Grape Juice is not Wine, and Wine is not Grape Juice…. There is a big difference between the two, much more then Fresh Water to Salt Water… Besides the properties of Wine and it’s ability to gladden the heart of Man (Psalm 104) and what the fermentation process does to remove the leaven from Grape Juice and what is represents (Christ Sinless body), It also is a completely different Beast…. Grape Juice is transformed into Wine ceasing to be Grape Juice. Sort of like water being turned into Hydrogen Peroxide… Truthfully I think I learned more about the process of fermentation and biochemistry this week then I think I ever wanted to know… *Laughing* Here is the Chemical Equation of wine C6H12O6 + 2Pi + 2ADP- → 2CH3CH2OH + 2CO2 + 2 ATP. When yeast ferments, it breaks down the glucose (C6H12O6) into exactly two molecules of ethanol (C2H6O) and two molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2). So Wine ceases to be Grape Juice when it is transformed into Wine….So when you asked about salt water that is like talking apples and oranges…..





Larry Bump said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > *Bump*
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Sep 25, 2007)

Michael,

I am not yet convinced. Do you have any references that support your assertion that "fruit of the vine" is a Jewish liturgical expression that can only mean wine?

All of the synoptic gospels use the word _oinos_, meaning wine, and yet none use it for the Lord's table. There are also other words for wine used in the NT: _gleukos_ and _paroinos_. I think if the writers intended it to mean specifically wine, they certainly had the means to make it clear.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 25, 2007)

From a previous thread:



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Philip Schaff, ed. A Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and Practical Theology, 1887:
> 
> ...


----------



## BrianLanier (Sep 26, 2007)

Thanks for those references, Andrew!


----------



## reformedman (Sep 26, 2007)

I disagree with the above with reference to your saying that 'wine is not grapejuice', for the simple reason that you are leaving something out of your calculation. Wine *does* have properties of grapejuice and I'll explain why.
Whenever you use chemistry in the form of formulas, you must remember that you refer to the finished product, to the end result. Your formula does not include the needed "time-element." The arrow in your formula indicates that it will end up this way in a "final-steady-state".

*example:*
You put the grapejuice in the pressured barrel, you lock it up and leave it in your temperature controlled cellar, you turn off the lights and leave; now when does that grapejuice become wine? Let's say you go daily, you will begin to get change in each of your 100 samples but you will still have grapejuice in each. Your 99th day of sampling will taste very nearly to your 100th day sample, except that your 100th day will be slightly more fermented than the one prior. You see, the properties of the grapejuice are diminishing but there are atleast one molecule in there of grapejuice. The difference is only the degree of fermentation or the "strength" of the wine. 

Getting back to cultural-hermeneutics, 

their wine was not pressured or placed in the conditions that we use today therefore their wine is different from ours. They used wineskins which although when locked for a long time, could build up to some degree of pressure still doesn't match what we'd do today. This is why it was said that you don't put new wine in old wineskins = because the old wineskins expanded already to a high pressure and using it to go under those pressures again, will stretch the leather and break the seams, it can't handle anymore stretching and fermenting.
Our Lord would not create something as a grace to the wedding guests that would in turn corrupt or degrade their bodies in any way. Our wine has an alcohol-level that by far, is stronger than the wine they used back then (this ofcourse is an assumption but a safe one considering their technology compared to ours).
It is said of the wine of Jesus that it was a great tasting wine, if you research what makes a great wine, you will find that it has to do with not only the type and season of the grape but also the amount of fermentation. You want to maintain as much of the sweetness of the juice while balancing the amount of alcohol level. Abandoning the juice to fermentation over uncontrolled time will over run the wine with acidity and alcohol and ruin the wine. The balance is a science, the juice must not be left to be over-run by fermentation. Therefore, a great tasting wine like our Lord's would have been a large amount of juice qualities still in tact.

In the end, I don't believe the materials used are as important as the spirit in which we come to the table in communion with God. Opposed to what some people believe; that the Lord's table is a time of fellowshipping with fellow believers (although a nice thought), I differe and believe that the OT and NT picture of this special time was particularly for us to come individually(albeit corporately as a church), to commune *with God* and reflect on our relationship with him. Not to have a good feeling, but to take part in the elements that he instituted by which we are to remember symbolically the work of Christ, His body, His blood.


----------



## KMK (Sep 26, 2007)

The real question is, "Why grape juice?" For 1800 years there was no debate that the cup should contain wine. Why grape juice in the 1800 all of a sudden? Because Methodist prohibitionists successfully taught that wine was evil. Dr. Welch, a Methodist, invented grape juice to replace wine in the cup because he believed that wine was evil. Nowdays the question is always asked, "Why wine?" The question that the church should have asked 150 years ago was, "Why grape juice?", but they didn't so now we are stuck answering the question, "Why wine?" It drives me crazy!


----------



## reformedman (Sep 26, 2007)

If I were a pastor and in charge of a congregation, I would use wine but a very weak one in accord with what I believe was biblical. But just a question though, is it possible that it might be illegal for churches to distribute wine to underage? under 21 years old is illegal? I dont know what the age is or if it depends on state.

In keeping with law of the land, it may not matter why they stopped in the past because it becomes a moot point if it wouldn't be allowed anyway. I dont know the legalities of it though.


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 26, 2007)

I still plan on responding to your last post in detail but have not had the time.... So here is a quick response to this post......

When studing the whole wine issue I ask what about children (Note, that I believe baptism should wait until 17, the same would go for the Lord Supper) but I still wanted to know all the ins and outs....

So here is what I found out... Almost all 50 states have provisions to allow underage use of wine/other. The two out of 5 provisions that stood out to me was:

1. If a parent gives their own child wine/other, it is not illegal.
2. If a child drinks wine/other for reglious purpose, it is not illegal....

The law of the land is not broken for those who allow their children at the Lord's Table before they are an adult...




reformedman said:


> If I were a pastor and in charge of a congregation, I would use wine but a very weak one in accord with what I believe was biblical. But just a question though, is it possible that it might be illegal for churches to distribute wine to underage? under 21 years old is illegal? I dont know what the age is or if it depends on state.
> 
> In keeping with law of the land, it may not matter why they stopped in the past because it becomes a moot point if it wouldn't be allowed anyway. I dont know the legalities of it though.


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 26, 2007)

Here is the laws for my state, Maryland. 

Maryland Law

Selling/Furnishing Alcohol to Youth

All States have laws prohibiting the furnishing of alcoholic beverages to minors. There were 6 exceptions and 1 additional provision listed for this law. The following are the 6 exceptions:

*1. Alcohol Furnished by Parent/Guardian*
2. Alcohol Furnished by Legal Age Spouse
3. In Any Private Location
4. In Private Residence
5. In Parent/Guardian's Home Only
*6. Other (Religious, Educational, Medical)*

In addition there was a category called "Bases for Affirmative Defense" that contained the following provision under which a server could not be charged for serving alcohol to a minor:

1. Minor Not Charged - Provisions requiring that the Seller/licensee be exonerated of charges of furnishing alcohol to a minor unless the minor involved is charged.


----------



## Coram Deo (Sep 26, 2007)

New Jersey Laws seem to be the same as Maryland...


1. Alcohol Furnished by Parent/Guardian
2. Alcohol Furnished by Legal Age Spouse
3. In Any Private Location
4. In Private Residence
5. In Parent/Guardian's Home Only
6. Other (Religious, Educational, Medical)


In Fact all states have a Religious Exception..... Though not all states have the rest of the exceptions that Maryland and New Jersey have.....


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

Who cares what the law of the land is? If God's Word says it should be wine, then let it be wine! If they write a law stating that people cannot congregate for Christian worship are we going to disband our churches?

Also, I don't understand this 'watered down wine' thing. You are just taking a swallow. You can't get drunk from a swallow.


----------



## Theoretical (Sep 27, 2007)

Even during Prohibition, religious use of wine was not precluded.


----------



## reformedman (Sep 27, 2007)

KMK said:


> Who cares what the law of the land is? If God's Word says it should be wine, then let it be wine! If they write a law stating that people cannot congregate for Christian worship are we going to disband our churches?


If there were slack concerning whether it was new wine or not in the bible, then abiding by the laws of the land would be the recommended path.
Since I believe it was new wine, this is the reason to consider the law in this case.



> Also, I don't understand this 'watered down wine' thing. You are just taking a swallow. You can't get drunk from a swallow.


Well, if you want to do it the biblical way and are as ardent on method as you are on material(from your first part of this quote), then you'd have to say--it wasn't only a swallow. It was a communion meal as in the OT and as in the church at Corinth. Remember that the evil over the Lord's Table in Corinth was overindulgence, also that some people were left without their share of food, the evil was not the sitting down to eat a full meal with the brethren there. The bible is not speaking (from their practice) that it was only a small tiny piece of bread and a small plastic dosage cup of drink. Part and principle to that meal was the bread and wine, whether it was the only foods present there, it was atleast that. The communion meal was a picture of the communion meal celebrated by the Hebrews once a year(not sure of timing). This was done as part of a bigger meal, so a swallow would not have been the case. 

But again, it was weaker wine not a swallow of today's strongly fermented wine.

Brethren in review of my post, I hope that I don't sound dogmatic in what I am saying, please do not think that I am angry with my post, my English isn't all that good and text doesn't show the smile on my face while I share my thoughts with you brethren on the other side. Please only take all of my posts as 2-cent issues not point-of-argument.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

reformedman said:


> Brethren in review of my post, I hope that I don't sound dogmatic in what I am saying, please do not think that I am angry with my post, my English isn't all that good and text doesn't show the smile on my face while I share my thoughts with you brethren on the other side. Please only take all of my posts as 2-cent issues not point-of-argument.



 

And I hope I do not come across as contentious. The thing that bothers me is the fact that the prohibitionists were allowed to pervert the Lord's Supper without any exegetical reason. We just rolled over. Now, those of us who would like to uphold the historic practice of wine in the cup are accused of unrighteousness because we stumble the drunkard.

Whatever kind of wine you believe was in the cup, one thing is for sure, it had the capability, if abused, to make a man drunk. Grape juice does not have that ability any more than water does.


----------



## reformedman (Sep 27, 2007)

I think that we totally agree, but the only difference I think is the degree by which the wine was fermented. As i said, I believe it was a low strength wine or even "new-wine" called so because it wasn't fermented like what we do now, it was fermented in a low quality lether bag with a very tightly tied knot on the top. As the bag became a balloon after a while, air would escape through the seams or the knot. Today's wine is fermented for years. 

But yes, it was most definitely considered fermented, I believe.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 27, 2007)

reformedman said:


> But again, it was weaker wine not a swallow of today's strongly fermented wine.



From someone who takes care of grapevines, this is not necessarily true. Grapes are not harvested all year round, only one season of the year. The juice is fermented to keep it. The wine is then used all year round. The older the wine, the more fermented. So unless you only partake during harvest and just after, you will be drinking well fermented wine.


----------



## non dignus (Sep 27, 2007)

Maybe this is fodder for another thread: ( If so, please accept my apologies )

If the congregation is given a choice on any given Lord's Day to take grape juice or take wine, are there not then two cups, not One?

It's very interesting that the wine contains grape juice also. Why not add a drop of wine to the grape juice for those who are sensitive about alcohol? At least there would be a semblance of _one cup_.


----------



## KMK (Sep 27, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> reformedman said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 27, 2007)

Sorry, I goofed the feature when I was snipping it...:blush:

Fixed


----------

