Grape juice or Wine
- Thread starter Life Mathers
- Start date
- Status
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
I don't exactly have a dog in this race, but if wine is required than I think that settles it. I never thought to look into it, the Episcopal church I was raised in used the real stuff and I never liked the taste of it (although I do enjoy the taste of wine today in moderation of course).
I do have two questions though. If someone is settled on a particular side would you join a church if it was the best choice for you and your family, if they did it the other way?
Now I know that religious use of wine was permissable under prohibition under certain regulations but if those regulations weren't there and a church believed it was sin to serve anything but fermented wine, would that church be in the moral wrong by serving it anyway? I know it compounds the problem because you would have to break multiple laws to satisfy your conscience but is that a good use of civil disobedience?
My church serves grape juice and I have no issues with it personally.
I do have two questions though. If someone is settled on a particular side would you join a church if it was the best choice for you and your family, if they did it the other way?
Now I know that religious use of wine was permissable under prohibition under certain regulations but if those regulations weren't there and a church believed it was sin to serve anything but fermented wine, would that church be in the moral wrong by serving it anyway? I know it compounds the problem because you would have to break multiple laws to satisfy your conscience but is that a good use of civil disobedience?
My church serves grape juice and I have no issues with it personally.
En Kristo
Puritan Board Freshman
Question: If someone is settled on a particular side would you join a church if it was the best choice for you and your family, if they did it the other way?
Answer: There is no such thing as a perfect church. My best advice would be to go to the most biblically faithful church you can find.
All of my life I attended churches that did not serve wine. After a number of years I became convicted of the matter. I used to say a silent prayer of repentance at the Lord's Supper. When I joined my current church, I began a program of education to prepare people for the reintroduction of wine. It is a very emotional issue with some people (my own family, for example). After about 7 years, the session has agreed to serve both wine and grape juice at the Lord's Supper beginning in January. We will continue to offer grape juice because it would be wrong to compel people to act against their conscience. That is my experience and perhaps you may find it helpful.
Question: Now I know that religious use of wine was permissable under prohibition under certain regulations but if those regulations weren't there and a church believed it was sin to serve anything but fermented wine, would that church be in the moral wrong by serving it anyway?
Answer: I think that Peter's answer to the high priest and council is applicable: We must obey God rather than men. This points to another problem. When so many churches do not adhere to sound biblical teaching, their infidelity undermines the position of faithful churches.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Great answers my friend! I completely love how you practically handled that problem at your church.
The second response, I obviously agree with scripture. I do believe it's an act of morally right civil disobedience but the philosopher in me wants to play "devil's advocate" if you'll permit me.
I don't know what the laws were exactly like but assuming prohibition meant prohibition. Wouldn't said church also have to violate the law against purchasing and possessing said alcohol? And they know they're supporting organized crime and all their murders and such? Would it still be a morally right act of civil disobedience? Or defying the law about manufacturing it, even if it's only for church use?
I know this is a hypothetical based not on reality, because there were religious exceptions, but you know just curious.
Thanks for your response it's very good and I whole heartedly agree.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
No, that is OK. Like I was mentioning, I have looked a bit into both sides. And as it stands, I see no reason fermentation adds any sanctity to the mandate for fruit of the vine. Have a blessed one. Also brother, no need to be self-conscience; in none of your responses were you ever hinting at being disrespectful, mean, or unfriendly. You have very good discussion etiquette, and I hope no one has told you different.
Last edited:
En Kristo
Puritan Board Freshman
Serving grape juice at the Lord’s Supper isn't sinful per se. What is sinful is forbidding the serving of wine. The temperance movement back in the 19th century condemned what Jesus did and commanded when he instituted the Lord’s Supper. It was legalism. It bound men’s consciences without Biblical warrant. It is one thing to serve grape juice because that is all that is available. It is quite a different thing to condemn what Jesus did and commanded. This is why I am fine with serving both grape juice and wine. In doing so the church is recognizing that what Jesus did is good and right. At the same time, it does not require people to violate their own conscience.
There is nothing wrong with individuals renouncing the use of alcohol in their private lives, provided that they understand the Biblical view that wine is a gift from God that must be used responsibly. People have no right to condemn what God calls good. Ultimately, the entire issue boils down to accepting what the Bible says as authoritative. We have no right to impose our own opinions over those of the Bible; we must conform our thinking to scripture. That’s the rub of the matter.
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, but the issue is that most people are willing to settle for the most faithful church they can find locally after they prioritize jobs, homes, school, family, etc. I would personally be willing to sell my home and quit my job to relocate my family to join a faithful church, but this is for another thread.
[automerge]1762956026[/automerge]
yes but consciences must be bound by the word of God. I am still awaiting the biblical argument why wine is unacceptable in the Lord's Supper.
En Kristo
Puritan Board Freshman
Two comments. First, I think that you will wait a long time for a biblical argument against serving wine. All of the arguments against serving wine are based not on sound biblical exegesis, but on human reasoning. That is my problem with what the churches have been doing since before prohibition. My thesis is that the impetus for the change in the way that the Lord’s Supper was observed stemmed from two things, arminianism/legalism (in Methodist, Baptist, Holiness denominations, etc.) and in pietism/social gospel (liberal mainline Protestant denominations). Prohibition was one issue that the arminian fundamentalists and liberals could agree upon. The common denominator was human reason and human effort trumping biblical fidelity.
Second, in regards to prioritizing a biblical church over jobs, homes, schools and so forth, until recently this idea never occurred to me. The reason is that I had never found a church that I regarded as biblically faithful. I had come to the conclusion that for reasons that I could not imagine, there simply were no churches that were serious about teaching the word of God faithfully, much less living in complete subordination to the Bible. I had come to believe that such churches simply didn’t exist.
God led me to the Westminster Confession of Faith which I studied on my own. Upon learning that it was the doctrinal statement of the Presbyterian Denomination, I visited a local Presbyterian Church. Unfortunately, it was a very liberal PCUSA church. I knew nothing of the differences between the various flavors of Presbyterianism and simply gave up on all of them. I presumed that the WCF was a forgotten historical document. I didn’t have a high regard for the Baptist churches that I had been attending, but at least they understood that homosexuality and the rest of the liberal nonsense was wrong and so I continued attending Baptist churches. I used to teach Sunday school from the WCF in the Baptist church and people were always enthusiastic about the teaching. They had no idea what the WCF was and knew so little of sound doctrine that they weren’t at all offended by the plain teaching of scripture. That continued to be the case my entire life as I moved around the country and joined and left many churches. Then I retired. The pastor at the last Baptist church that I attended was vehemently anti-Reformed. He had a very shallow grasp of scripture or Reformed theology. It is he who drove me to find a better church in which to worship.
It wasn’t until late in life that I found a PCA church that took the Bible seriously. It came as a shock. I had given up looking for a good church. After I retired, I discovered Monergism.com and began downloading sermons to play during my commute back and forth from work. I listened to Rev. Richard Phillips expounding the book of John and discovered that he lived in South Carolina. So, one day I drove to his church and asked to see him. I was going to beg him to plant a church in the county in which I live. He wasn’t available at the time, but I was introduced to Mel Duncan who pointed me to PCA churches in the next county over from where I live. When I attended the church of which I am currently a member for the first time, the first hymn we sang was, “Whatever My God Ordains is Right”. I had never heard that hymn before in my life but as soon as we began to sing I knew that I had finally found the church home I had been longing for my entire life. I am happy to be there some 8 years later and regret that I had not found such churches years ago.
My pastor once asked me if I had considered what churches were available when I chose where to retire. I told him no. He was a little put off, but I explained that I had given up looking for good churches years ago. I had come to the conclusion that there weren’t any.
I now teach a community Bible study in the local public library. All are invited to come. I’ve been doing this ever since I left the Baptist church. I decided that since there were no churches in the county that faithfully explicated the scriptures, (I am not exaggerating; there were literally none) that I would do it myself. Our Bible study group has been meeting for 8 years. Our group has never been large, but those who attend are hungry for the word of God and are growing in the faith. I am praying that God will use this small spark to ignite a fire of revival in our community and that some day we will plant a faithful Reformed church. In the meantime, God is good. There is a place where people can come and hear the Bible plainly taught.
Would you say that those works done by the unregenerate, which seem to conform to God's law, are formally acceptable even though they cannot please God?
My question was more about imperfect works done by regenerate men. Are any of our works pleasing to God and mete to receive grace by their own merit, or are they as filthy rags and acceptable only by Christ's merit, which we lay hold to in faith? Even if the distinction between wine and grape juice is meaningful, is drinking wine enough to perfect our liturgy and make it formally acceptable and pleasing to God?
I tend to think, along the lines of WCF 16.1, that it isn't possible for good works to be formally acceptable from the hearts and hands of bad men. We may fish out the mote of grape juice from our worship, if mote it be, but isn't the beam of indwelling sin the real obstacle to pleasing God through our works?
2 Kings 10:29-30, "Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them, to wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan. And the LORD said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel."
"You being evil know how to give good gifts." Again, the THING is acceptable, though the PERSON is not.
Again, there is a formal and material difference. Formally pleasing, though materially they are only acceptable by Jesus Christ. 1st Peter 2, they are "spiritual sacrifices" formally, but "accepted through Christ" materially.
Yes, the THING is more formally acceptable and pleasing to God because it conforms to His will. Paul praises the Corinthians for keeping the ordinances (or traditions), 1 Cor. 11. He corrects them for not doing so.
Again, two different things. If you want to discuss the distinctions I am happy to do so.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
The alcohol content coupled with the antiseptic properties of silver or the antibacterial qualities of pewter helps mitigate the transfer of germs.
Last edited:
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
1 Corinthians 11:21 ("... and another is drunken") tells us the church understood "fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29) to be wine with some level of alcohol content. 1 Corinthians 11 would have been the ideal place for Paul to condemn the use of strong wine, tell them to water it down more, use only the fresh pressings, etc. Yet, he only advocates for sobriety, discernment, consideration of the body, self-examination, etc., in the observance of the institution (as given).
Also, the alcoholic content of wine (and its effect upon a man's spirits) is a parallel to the Holy Spirit applying graces to the soul of the believer.
“The Spirit is to the soul what wine is to the body, cheering, strengthening, and enlarging the heart… When the Spirit comes, He brings a holy warmth and vigor, raising the affections heavenward.”
— John Flavel, Sermon on Ephesians 5:18 (“Be filled with the Spirit”)
Drink a whole bottle of grape juice and your "spirit" (heart, frame of mind, whatever you like to call it) will be completely unaffected. Drink one glass of wine and, as Flavel notes, your heart is cheered and enlarged. Christ's institution of wine for use in the Lord's supper is purposeful on this account. Using grape juice distorts and robs from this most excellent purpose of our Savior.
Also, the alcoholic content of wine (and its effect upon a man's spirits) is a parallel to the Holy Spirit applying graces to the soul of the believer.
“The Spirit is to the soul what wine is to the body, cheering, strengthening, and enlarging the heart… When the Spirit comes, He brings a holy warmth and vigor, raising the affections heavenward.”
— John Flavel, Sermon on Ephesians 5:18 (“Be filled with the Spirit”)
Drink a whole bottle of grape juice and your "spirit" (heart, frame of mind, whatever you like to call it) will be completely unaffected. Drink one glass of wine and, as Flavel notes, your heart is cheered and enlarged. Christ's institution of wine for use in the Lord's supper is purposeful on this account. Using grape juice distorts and robs from this most excellent purpose of our Savior.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
How so when most likely 99.9% of churches do not give singular individuals a full, half, or even quarter glass of wine for communion. The last place I attended that used fermented wine for communion, allotted barely a shot glass amount. It seems most that share a common cup, take but a sip. If we are to hold this is the reason for the necessity of fermentation; i.e. the effects of fermentation, shouldn't it then be dispersed in amounts that fermentation can take effect?
On the other hand, if no church disperses wine at communion in the amounts where the fermentation can cause mild/pre intoxication, in which the Bible asserts as a blessing (as opposed to strict sobriety); then what is the difference between grape juice and wine in correlation with the "fruit of the vine" as symbolism for Christs blood shed?
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I think you're misunderstanding - it's not that the wine needs to cheer the heart during the Supper but that wine is part of the symbolism. In other words, using something that physically cheers the heart parallels what God does spiritually during the Supper. I believe that is the comparison the Flavel quote is getting at: "The Spirit is to the soul what wine is to the body, cheering, strengthening, and enlarging the heart…" The parallel is Spirit/soul//wine/body. Likewise the small piece of bread in the Supper is not enough to fill the belly, but is instead a spiritual reminder that the Spirit strengthens the soul in the same way bread strengthens the body (Spirit/soul//bread/body).
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Yet, Jesus doesn't ask for either the "fruit of the vine" to be a symbol of gladness/cheer, nor the bread to be symbols of vitality/nutrition in the context of Communion. But, blood that is shed, and a body that is broken. This other stuff seems to be added to try and combat a wine/juice scenario, that somehow the fermentation adds to the symbolism/correlation. I don't see this. Isaiah 63:2-4 shows crushed grapes being used as symbolism for blood. Isn't blood the correlation Jesus is trying to get across?
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
You don't think He purposefully chose bread and a cup containing the fruit of the vine? All throughout His ministry He referred to "the cup," bread, and wine/vine. He didn't single out these things in a vacuum - He was drawing from their rich symbolism in the Hebrew Scriptures. Why wouldn't we be expected to pick up on and make such connections?
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
My point though, is in this context, it appears Jesus describes exactly what the elements are meant to represent. And in what context they are to be relative to our remembrance. i.e. blood shed, and a body broken; which depicts the price of the New Covenant.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
But there is more to the Supper than just a remembrance. There is, for example, also a "looking ahead" aspect related to the bread and cup:
"I will not eat of it anymore, until it be fulfilleth in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22.16)
"I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God be come." (v.18)
"For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lord’s death till he come." (I Cor. 11.26)
The remembrance is not merely acknowledging the past or even recalling it simply for the sake of thankfulness - it is also that which sustains us going forward. It is looking back and looking forward at the same time. It is looking back at our sin and Christ's sacrifice while at the same time looking ahead to His future return and our final deliverance. This is how the bread and the cup are used throughout Scripture. (See, for example, the past/future motif of the bread and the cup in places like Exodus 16.32, 25.30 with Deut.8.3, and Psalm 16.5 /116.13.)
It's not hard to imagine that Christ, a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek, was drawing from such ancient imagery when considering tbe fact that "Melchizedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was a Priest of the most high God." (Gen.14.18)
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
I still dont see how with any of this fermentation of the fruit of the vine is necessary for the symbolism expected in Communion. But thank you for trying.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother Dave,
I think you have to look at the cumulative weight of the arguments being presented.
While not authoritative, from Jewish tradition, we can have a high level of certainty that wine was used at Passover. Therefore have a high level of certainty that the cup present at the Last Supper was indeed a cup of wine. Therefore, the "this cup" tells us the identity of the "fruit of the vine".
I think the question "Is it fermented?" is anachronistic. The question should be, "Is it wine?" It is difficult to imagine that anyone living in the first century would understand "fruit of the vine" as anything other than wine. And if it is wine, then it is fermented. It was crushed and stored in a wine press (ληνός), where it undoubtedly went through a process of fermentation.
I'm not sure what you are imagining the process of making unfermented grape juice would be in a pre-industrial age. At harvest, grapes are all gathered at the same time, then put into a vat or press together, crushed together, and stored together. Wine would be put into a wine sack, and the fermentation process continues there. My understanding is that the only way to stop the fermentation process would be to take some of that juice and drink it immediately, introduce something to it that would stop the fermentation process, or "cold-crash" it. To claim that this is happening in the first century is highly implausible. Furthermore, my family brought some grape juice home for my kids from the harvest this year, and it started fermenting in the car before it got to our refrigerator, and even continued to ferment in our refrigerator. The kids had grape juice one time from that bottle before it transferred ownership to the adults!
@Northern Crofter set forth an important Biblical-Theological argument for the connection between the wine and the Marriage Supper. This also argues that it was, in fact, wine that was present and drunk at the Lord's Supper because wine carries significant theological meaning.
See R.T. France:
I think you have to look at the cumulative weight of the arguments being presented.
While not authoritative, from Jewish tradition, we can have a high level of certainty that wine was used at Passover. Therefore have a high level of certainty that the cup present at the Last Supper was indeed a cup of wine. Therefore, the "this cup" tells us the identity of the "fruit of the vine".
I think the question "Is it fermented?" is anachronistic. The question should be, "Is it wine?" It is difficult to imagine that anyone living in the first century would understand "fruit of the vine" as anything other than wine. And if it is wine, then it is fermented. It was crushed and stored in a wine press (ληνός), where it undoubtedly went through a process of fermentation.
I'm not sure what you are imagining the process of making unfermented grape juice would be in a pre-industrial age. At harvest, grapes are all gathered at the same time, then put into a vat or press together, crushed together, and stored together. Wine would be put into a wine sack, and the fermentation process continues there. My understanding is that the only way to stop the fermentation process would be to take some of that juice and drink it immediately, introduce something to it that would stop the fermentation process, or "cold-crash" it. To claim that this is happening in the first century is highly implausible. Furthermore, my family brought some grape juice home for my kids from the harvest this year, and it started fermenting in the car before it got to our refrigerator, and even continued to ferment in our refrigerator. The kids had grape juice one time from that bottle before it transferred ownership to the adults!
@Northern Crofter set forth an important Biblical-Theological argument for the connection between the wine and the Marriage Supper. This also argues that it was, in fact, wine that was present and drunk at the Lord's Supper because wine carries significant theological meaning.
See R.T. France:
France again,
The meal is remembrance, nourishment, and anticipation of the Wedding Supper of the Lamb. There can be no doubt that wine is served at a wedding - especially at a wedding Jesus hosts!
One should note (and if someone has pointed this out, bygones) harvest was back then at the end of summer. There would be no fresh grapes or juice at the time of Passover. It was impossible that the fruit of the vine had during Passover to be anything other than wine, as that was the only means of preserving the juice of the grape.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
You forget: they could boil and condense and boil and condense in repeated cycles until they had a syrup concentrate. (Yes, I've had this argued to me.) Because wood fuel was very cheap and plentiful back then, they had lots of free time, and they were very scrupulous about not drinking alcohol... Or something. I guess.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Why do you keep repeating "fruit of the vine" when that phrase is not found in the gospels?
They all say "wine."
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
That's a weird claim.
Matthew 26:29
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.
Luke 22:18
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Mark 14:25
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.
Venator Veritatis
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm in full agreement that the Lord's Supper ought to be commemorated with wine.
But is this not one of the passages that our brother is getting the phrase from?
"I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29, ESV)
I don't know greek, but as far as I can tell it means what it's translated as, fruit or generation of the vine. But sometime much better suited then I can answer to the Greek.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Indeed. None of the Gospels mention wine, even in the KJV, but all mention "fruit of the vine." Also, the 1 Cor. verse does not directly mention wine by name either.
My point in this, and trying to sift through these things, is to find some sort of necessity for fermentation to be present for the symbolism of blood shed to be upheld. With verses like Isaiah 63:2-4, which depicts grapes being crushed in the wine press as a representation of blood, I don't see why fermentation must add to the symbolism of blood Jesus is trying to get across with the denoting of "fruit of the vine"? I agree, it could very well have been fermented wine at the Last Supper, and most likely was. But my question is, is fermented wine necessitated when Jesus doesn't mention wine, but the "fruit of the vine?" We all know the preserving of grape juice didn't happen until a few hundred years ago. But, with that technology, how is the sacrament diminished unless fermentation adds something to it? I have yet to see a good argument that fermentation adds something to what Jesus was trying to convey (as context shows) at the Supper.
This would be different, if say, at our Communions we also have feasts, so that, like someone mentioned earlier, there is a semblance of the effects of that fermentation, so that, the remembrance will be tied to the eventual gladness, etc. that wine affords. But I have never been to a church that partakes of the Supper in such a way, where it is joined with a meal, started by the remembrance; and by further consumption, leads into the effects that fermentation would provide. It is always dispersed at such minute portions, that the fermentation has no effect, and is in essence, no different in effect than juice.
This is coming from someone that is in no way a teetotaler, though I very rarely if ever partake. I am simply having a hard time trying to piece together the perceived emphasis and function of fermentation in our contemporary Suppers?
Last edited:
Claes Jacob Heijndericksz
Puritan Board Freshman
I propose the abolition of the Norman words, vine and vineyard, which causes so much confusion on the other side of the ocean. Let’s just stick with the proper updated Anglo-Saxon words: winebeam and wineyard.
Can bread be replaced with cake? Refined baking is not that old; they couldn't make cake as we know it today. Now we can; why can't we? How far are folks willing to vary from what Scripture literally prescribes for the elements of the Lord's Supper? For some grape juice is arguably fine; it's still the juice of the grape. Why not juice and twinkies? Or coke and twinkies. I've heard missionaries argue for whatever drink or staple they can find in that culture rather than carry wine and bread with them. I'm not trying to make an argument ab absurdum; for some we are clearly already there; but what are the limits of "we can do this now"? Or this culture has no bread no wine; we will use their main carb and drink instead.
In addition to the fact that, as others have pointed out, it is. Even the word "wine", in Greek and English, literally means "vine", and vice versa, and for most of history the juice of the fruit at any stage (unfermented, fermented, or vinagar) was called wine.
[automerge]1763393937[/automerge]
Don't forget "wineberry".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
