Grape juice or Wine

[Cornelius Van Halen]

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, I dont 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 probably was. But my question is, is fermented wine necessitated when Jesus doesnt mention wine, but fruit of the vine? We all know the preserving of grape juice didnt happen until a few hundred years ago. But, with that technology, how is the sacrament diminished unless fermentation adds something to it? I just have yet to see a good argument fermentation adds something to what Jesus was trying to convey (as context shows) at the Supper.

I'd love it if you'd interact with my previous post (#81)!

I'd also suggest that understanding that the phrase "fruit of the vine" has a referent to wine. I believe you can find this present in both Josephus Antiquities and Philo On Drunkenness.

Additionally, as I alluded to above, the celebration of the Passover at the time of Jesus almost certainly had wine, which is the referent to the cup.

Mishnayos Pesachim Perek 10 Mishnah 1 Online - Mishnah.org

Learn Mishnayos Pesachim Perek 10 Mishnah 1 Online! Easy way to learn the complete Mishnayot in English and Hebrew! Start learning Mishnayos today!

www.mishnah.org

Technological advances don't mean that we should modify the sign, especially when the sign is full of meaning (see above!)

 

[davejonescue]

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.

It is most likely because the preceding verses denote unleavened bread. Luke 22:7. While unleavened bread is commanded for the Passover, I do not believe wine is. And as such, since the Gospels denote "fruit of the vine" and not wine. And since I have yet to be shown how fermentation in the contemporary dispersion of the Lords supper plays any part in any said effect that fermentation may have. I don't see any difference between juice and wine since both are fruits of the vine?

 

[EvanF]

It is most likely because the preceding verses denote unleavened bread. Luke 22:7. While unleavened bread is commanded for the Passover, I do not believe wine is.

Ironically, some advocate for only fermented wine, but also for leavened bread.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I know some people argue for it but I thought the Reformed view was unleavened is part of the ceremonial law; hence the requirement is simply bread; does not matter the leavening. At least that is the view I have always heard since being consciously Reformed (40 years now).

Ironically, some advocate for only fermented wine, but also for leavened bread.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

It is most likely because the preceding verses denote unleavened bread. Luke 22:7. While unleavened bread is commanded for the Passover, I do not believe wine is. And as such, since the Gospels denote "fruit of the vine" and not wine. And since I have yet to be shown how fermentation in the contemporary dispersion of the Lords supper plays any part in any said effect that fermentation may have. I don't see any difference between juice and wine since both are fruits of the vine?

Do we not read scripture and interpret it in it's historical context? What did Christ mean when he said "fruit of the vine"? What did the readers of the Gospels understand by that phrase? Historically what was used in Passover and does that have any bearing on what we ought to use? Can we use the fruit of any vine? Blackberries? Gooseberrys? Watermelon? You get the point.

It's more than just "well I don't see it commanded". You keep mentioning the contemporary dispersion of the Lord's Supper. Does what was understood historically and practiced by the church have no bearing?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Ironically, some advocate for only fermented wine, but also for leavened bread.

I think what they are really advocating for is common cup/common bread. It is not necessarily the contents of the cup (juice, strong wine, weak wine, etc.) or the bread (leavened, unleavened) but that there is a cup to share and bread to break, not individual pre-portioned tokens. The Reformers, remember, are reforming away from the Roman practices of withholding the cup and using wafers and back to the elements and actions (give thanks, take, divide, partake) instituted by Christ.

But it is clear to me from Scripture that Christ shared a cup of wine and unleavened bread with His disciples. I have yet to see a compelling reason why anyone would support coming up with something different. Why complicate it? Does anyone think doing what Christ did was in any way problematic? If (hopefully) not, we should all be able to simply agree to do what He did.

 

[Brother Rabbit]

I have a really hard time with this. The question that keeps coming back to my mind is: what liberty do we have to change the element of the sacrament?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I have a really hard time with this. The question that keeps coming back to my mind is: what liberty do we have to change the element of the sacrament?

Definitely a good question to ask.

I would add, "which element is commanded in this first place"?

If fermented, alcohol-bearing wine is the commanded element, then we have no liberty to deviate from it. If the commanded element is "the stuff that you get from crushing grapes", then we have liberty to choose wine or grape juice.

 

[MW]

If fermented, alcohol-bearing wine is the commanded element, then we have no liberty to deviate from it. If the commanded element is "the stuff that you get from crushing grapes", then we have liberty to choose wine or grape juice.

Good way of putting the state of the question. But that separation only makes sense in a modern grocery store. In the ancient world, and for most of history, that would have been a nonsensical distinction. The "fruit of the vine" was the raw material for wine. To suggest otherwise is like saying that a wheat farmer harvests "the fruit of the stalk" but does not intend it for bread. The end product defines the purpose of the harvest. This is what the scholastics would call the final cause.

 

[EvanF]

I know some people argue for it but I thought the Reformed view was unleavened is part of the ceremonial law; hence the requirement is simply bread; does not matter the leavening. At least that is the view I have always heard since being consciously Reformed (40 years now).

I think that is certainly the most common and historically accepted view, but those advocating for leavened bread argue that it is more fitting to represent the "living bread"(John 6:51) - similar to the arguments raised here that well fermented wine is more fitting because it enlivens and makes glad.

I think what they are really advocating for is common cup/common bread. It is not necessarily the contents of the cup (juice, strong wine, weak wine, etc.) or the bread (leavened, unleavened) but that there is a cup to share and bread to break, not individual pre-portioned tokens. The Reformers, remember, are reforming away from the Roman practices of withholding the cup and using wafers and back to the elements and actions (give thanks, take, divide, partake) instituted by Christ.

But it is clear to me from Scripture that Christ shared a cup of wine and unleavened bread with His disciples. I have yet to see a compelling reason why anyone would support coming up with something different. Why complicate it? Does anyone think doing what Christ did was in any way problematic? If (hopefully) not, we should all be able to simply agree to do what He did.

The ones I've encountered did not advocate for common cup, but did advocate specifically for fermented wine and leavened bread for the reasons I mention above.

I think that the commonly accepted substitution of leavened bread for unleavened on the basis of the ceremonial law being abrogated makes just as much sense as substituting unfermented grape juice for fermented, especially when neither wine nor alcohol content were even specified under the ceremonial laws for passover. On the other hand, I can certainly respect the argument that we should use the elements most like to those used by Christ when he instituted the sacrament. But it seems like acceptance of leavened bread but opposition to unfermented grape juice is somewhat inconsistent with either argument.

All that said, no one can argue that Jesus erred or sinned in using fermented wine in the sacrament, and even teetotalers would never make such an argument. They might claim he miraculously disfermented the wine, or that he provided what was available to the church at the time, but they would never say we do him better by serving unfermented grape juice, nor I presume does the pastor mentioned in the OP.

 

[Parakaleo]

Apart from the strictly biblical arguments, those who subscribe to historic Reformed confessions (any of them) have the extra argument of the word "wine" appearing in these confessions as the approved content of the cup in the Lord's supper. Those who allow grape juice are at odds with the historic confessions they hold, since the grape juice is a "stunted" product and not properly wine. I have likened serving up grape juice at the Lord's table to setting out a lump of unbaked bread dough.

 

[darrellmaurina]

In my experience with Reformed churches of Dutch background, wine is the norm. Some churches will offer a non-alcoholic alternative for those who can't drink alcohol for one reason or another. But I have never encountered a Reformed church where wine is completely off the table. If there is such a church, it would be rare, I think.

My experience is close to the opposite. Outside of the very strictest of Reformed and Presbyterian churches, what I see is that grape juice is the norm and that wine, if offered, is in a small section of communion cups made available for those who insist on wine. But your Dutch Reformed context is very different and I understand that.

Here's an example of what I mean. I am not certain of current RPCNA practice and I would want to defer to my Covenanter brothers, but I know a Covenanter elder who, in the not-so-distant past, had to ask permission of presbytery to come to communion at the church where he grew up, a German Reformed congregation that had wine communion. The issue wasn't that he was a RPCNA elder taking communion in an RCUS church, but that use of wine was strictly forbidden, not only in communion but in any context. Yes, I know the Covenanters are no longer teetotalers by synodical mandate, but I think using only grape juice in communion persisted much longer than the ban on consuming alcohol in any context, in church or out of it.

Because I live in the Bible Belt, I don't drink. I don't object to those who do. I understand the biblical objection is to drunkenness, not drinking per se.

I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the alcohol content of the communion elements and more time focusing on the content of the communion sermon and whether it emphasizes the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations.

 

[darrellmaurina]

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.

Spoken like a good Dutchman. All problems come from the French and their malign influence! ;-)

I'm joking. Those who know the historic issues between Belgium and the Netherlands, and the role of the French Revolution (Kuyper's party was called the Anti-Revolutionary Party for a reason), will know my point.

Of course, there is that wee bairn of a problem that John Calvin was French and spoke French and preached in French in Geneva. So I guess we need to say that the malign influence of the French was pushed back briefly by the rise of the Reformation until the extermination of the Huguenots, and since then, the French have been a curse upon the world.

Apologies to my faithful French Reformed brothers and sisters. You aren't the issue. God has a remnant in your land, and we need to pray for you. And I'm well aware of the problems spread all over the modern world by American immorality and filth, and in earlier centuries, by Italian immorality. Salvation is by grace, not by race, and while we can joke about ethnic stereotypes, all nations and tribes and tongues are totally depraved and totally in need of Christ and His saving blood.

 

[Solparvus]

My experience is close to the opposite. Outside of the very strictest of Reformed and Presbyterian churches, what I see is that grape juice is the norm and that wine, if offered, is in a small section of communion cups made available for those who insist on wine. But your Dutch Reformed context is very different and I understand that.

Here's an example of what I mean. I am not certain of current RPCNA practice and I would want to defer to my Covenanter brothers, but I know a Covenanter elder who, in the not-so-distant past, had to ask permission of presbytery to come to communion at the church where he grew up, a German Reformed congregation that had wine communion. The issue wasn't that he was a RPCNA elder taking communion in an RCUS church, but that use of wine was strictly forbidden, not only in communion but in any context. Yes, I know the Covenanters are no longer teetotalers by synodical mandate, but I think using only grape juice in communion persisted much longer than the ban on consuming alcohol in any context, in church or out of it.

Because I live in the Bible Belt, I don't drink. I don't object to those who do. I understand the biblical objection is to drunkenness, not drinking per se.

I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the alcohol content of the communion elements and more time focusing on the content of the communion sermon and whether it emphasizes the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations.

That's correct. It used to be a vow of ordination that officers would totally abstain from all use of wine. We no longer have that vow, thankfully. There is a question of whether it was meant to extend to the use of wine in communion. I know a few officers who believe it did not.

Regarding preparation, much better to have a communion season with the right internal preparations, with some deficiencies in the outward administration, than a right outward administration without the internal realities. The Lord might be gracious in the former, but the latter will always fall flat.

 

[Claes Jacob Heijndericksz]

Spoken like a good Dutchman. All problems come from the French and their malign influence! ;-)

I'm joking. Those who know the historic issues between Belgium and the Netherlands, and the role of the French Revolution (Kuyper's party was called the Anti-Revolutionary Party for a reason), will know my point.

Of course, there is that wee bairn of a problem that John Calvin was French and spoke French and preached in French in Geneva. So I guess we need to say that the malign influence of the French was pushed back briefly by the rise of the Reformation until the extermination of the Huguenots, and since then, the French have been a curse upon the world.

Apologies to my faithful French Reformed brothers and sisters. You aren't the issue. God has a remnant in your land, and we need to pray for you. And I'm well aware of the problems spread all over the modern world by American immorality and filth, and in earlier centuries, by Italian immorality. Salvation is by grace, not by race, and while we can joke about ethnic stereotypes, all nations and tribes and tongues are totally depraved and totally in need of Christ and His saving blood.

I certainly complained like a good Dutchman.

Yet, I thought I was complaining firstly as a faithful Dutch Reformed, against the malign influence of the 2nd and 3rd+ Awakenings on the other side of the ocean.

Secondly as an Anti-Revolutionary, complaining the malign influence of that particular brand of liberalism that seeks to re-educate the populace through positions of power, inducing them into a state religion of virtues detached from Christ.

And lastly as a Dutch non-English speaker, against the malign influence of the English; since I still remember struggling with English language in my early school years, while recalling our history: the four Anglo-Dutch wars and the two Boer wars of our kinsmen.

 

[En Kristo]

I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the alcohol content of the communion elements and more time focusing on the content of the communion sermon and whether it emphasizes the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations.

This is something that I wrestle with. On one hand, it’s true. We ought to spend less time focusing on the alcohol content of the communion elements, etc. On the other hand, that is more of a sentiment than a cogent argument. Is there any question of faith that such a sentiment cannot be applied? Infant baptism - I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the age of the person being baptized and more time focusing on the purpose of baptism in the life of the believer and the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations. Paedo communion - I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the age of the person taking communion and more time focusing on the content of the communion sermon and whether it emphasizes the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations. I can’t help but think that if Uzzah had spent a little more time thinking through the details of God’s commandment not to touch the ark of the covenant, perhaps he wouldn’t have been quite so hasty about reaching out to prevent it from falling from the cart. Maybe one of the lessons of that unfortunate account is that God is concerned about the details and so we should be concerned about the details. I could go on, but I think that makes my point.

Perhaps a better question to ask is how much time and effort should we make in regards to our observance of a sacrament? Well, it’s a sacrament. We might want to devote as much time, attention and concern to it as it takes to ensure that our practice matches our understanding of God’s word. Is it legitimate to ask, why was it that a change was made to the way the sacrament had observed by the church in every time and place since the first century? Big claims require big justification. Did the church err in making the change? Ought we to repent? Is it legitimate to ask whether or not the refusal to serve what Jesus served is a disapproval of Jesus’ teaching and/or conduct?

We all tire of disputes. But, it seems to me, confessionalism requires constant vigilance, instruction, reproof, correction, rebuke and, well, disputes. Let us endeavor to dispute out of love and respect, yes for our brothers in Christ, but even more for our God and his word.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I certainly complained like a good Dutchman.

Yet, I thought I was complaining firstly as a faithful Dutch Reformed, against the malign influence of the 2nd and 3rd+ Awakenings on the other side of the ocean.

Secondly as an Anti-Revolutionary, complaining the malign influence of that particular brand of liberalism that seeks to re-educate the populace through positions of power, inducing them into a state religion of virtues detached from Christ.

And lastly as a Dutch non-English speaker, against the malign influence of the English; since I still remember struggling with English language in my early school years, while recalling our history: the four Anglo-Dutch wars and the two Boer wars of our kinsmen.

Ware Gereformeerde!

(Truly Reformed!)

And please correct my grammar if needed. There is no doubt that your English is far better than my nearly-nonexistent knowledge of Dutch.

To avoid any doubt on my sympathies for the Dutch "Anti-Revolutionary" political philosophy, we on the American side of the ocean are used to comparing and contrasting our American Revolution with the French Revolution, noting the anti-religious and culturally destructive character of the French Revolution and how it differed from the experience of our own revolution. American conservatives who have no ties to the Dutch or to Kuyper -- former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, for example, who is an ethnic Italian and a Roman Catholic -- will often rebuke American secular liberal views of separating church and state by saying "that's not the American Revolution, that's France." Comparing something in America to "France" is not a compliment.

The difference, of course, is that your people and your churches in the Netherlands had to deal directly with the malign influence of the French Revolution. On our side of the ocean, we bought the Louisiana Purchase (roughly half of the western part of the current United States west of the Mississippi River) from Napoleon so he could go finance his activities in Europe. American money prevented what could have become a very damaging problem for us if Napoleon had won his wars of conquest in Europe and turned his attention to filling the vast open spaces north and west of Louisiana with French settlers, bringing dangerous French ideas to our American doorstep.

We bought our way out of a very big potential mess.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the alcohol content of the communion elements and more time focusing on the content of the communion sermon and whether it emphasizes the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations.

This is something that I wrestle with. On one hand, it’s true. We ought to spend less time focusing on the alcohol content of the communion elements, etc. On the other hand, that is more of a sentiment than a cogent argument. Is there any question of faith that such a sentiment cannot be applied? Infant baptism - I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the age of the person being baptized and more time focusing on the purpose of baptism in the life of the believer and the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations. Paedo communion - I think we ought to spend less time focusing on the age of the person taking communion and more time focusing on the content of the communion sermon and whether it emphasizes the need for personal conversion of the hearts of the congregations. I can’t help but think that if Uzzah had spent a little more time thinking through the details of God’s commandment not to touch the ark of the covenant, perhaps he wouldn’t have been quite so hasty about reaching out to prevent it from falling from the cart. Maybe one of the lessons of that unfortunate account is that God is concerned about the details and so we should be concerned about the details. I could go on, but I think that makes my point.

Perhaps a better question to ask is how much time and effort should we make in regards to our observance of a sacrament? Well, it’s a sacrament. We might want to devote as much time, attention and concern to it as it takes to ensure that our practice matches our understanding of God’s word. Is it legitimate to ask, why was it that a change was made to the way the sacrament had observed by the church in every time and place since the first century? Big claims require big justification. Did the church err in making the change? Ought we to repent? Is it legitimate to ask whether or not the refusal to serve what Jesus served is a disapproval of Jesus’ teaching and/or conduct?

We all tire of disputes. But, it seems to me, confessionalism requires constant vigilance, instruction, reproof, correction, rebuke and, well, disputes. Let us endeavor to dispute out of love and respect, yes for our brothers in Christ, but even more for our God and his word.

Grits, I honestly don't see where you're coming from. Or perhaps I don't see the problem where you see it in some of your examples.

In dealing with a committed Baptist, one of the things I do is ask why he opposes infant baptism. If he gives me an answer that babies have no sin, or that they all go to heaven until some mythical "age of accountability," my problem is not that I'm dealing with a Baptist but with a Pelagian and I have to address, not the age of baptism, but the doctrine of original sin.

By contrast, if I'm dealing with a covenantal Baptist -- which is the case for most who call themselves Reformed Baptists or Particular Baptists -- he agrees with me on the need for profession of personal faith to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, and he agrees with me on the need to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We're now dealing with the area of honest disagreement between two believers who affirm sovereign grace, and I'm okay with treating such a Baptist the way John Owen treated John Bunyan.

And yes, I know there is a big spectrum between those two poles on the Baptist map.

It's not that God doesn't care about the details, but rather than not all details are equally problematic.

This isn't a case in which we "tire of disputes" but rather that we distinguish between damnable heresies like Pelagianism and sincere disagreement based on specific texts. It's why Calvin respected Luther despite disagreements, though his respect was not reciprocated by most of Luther's successors. Apparently Luther never saw the letter Calvin wrote him with his views on the Lord's Supper, a letter which was intercepted by one of Luther's associates who knew Luther was at that time, near the end of his life, furious with the Swiss and feared what Luther might write to Calvin if Luther saw Calvin's letter when Luther was in a bad mood.

Not all Baptists are the same, and most people who disagree on wine vs grape juice in communion do so based on principles that are far less central to Christian doctrine than the doctrine of baptism.

Of course if there is someone who says that it's sinful to drink wine at all, even in communion, they are making Jesus a sinner and that view, like those Baptists who say babies have no sin, needs to be rebuked.