Lord Supper Question?

[Coram Deo]

I am not sure if this goes here under worship or under covenant theology... If the mods want to move it, that is fine...

I am currently in a discussion with a pastor friend with regards to the Lord Supper and the issue with Wine.... He is a Macaurther like Pastor in Theology.... He wants to read Given for you, but it will be a month before he can pick up the book. I quoted to him R.C. Sproul with regards to the wine issue with the following quotes....

“Wine, in Scripture, is a promise from God of the blessings of the covenant (Psa 4:7 “Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than when the grain and new wine abound.”). Though sinful men misuse and abuse this gift, yet God Himself uses it as an example of His goodness towards us. (Ps 104:14-15 “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine which makes man's heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man's heart.”).



As in all things in creation, wine itself is a symbol, a picture, a reflection of something bigger and greater. It is a picture of the blessings that come from a right relationship with God (Isa 25:6, “And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine. Isa 27:2 In that day, "A vineyard of wine, sing of it”). In fact, it is a picture of the new life we have in Christ; (Isa 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.). Jesus used wine as a symbol of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who cannot be limited by old traditions (Matt 9:17 "Nor do men put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out, and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.") This is possibly, why the very first miracle that Jesus performed before His disciples, authenticating His ministry, was to turn water into wine. (John 2:9-11 “And when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; you have kept the good wine until now." This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.). This miracle, demonstrated not only His lordship over creation, but was also a picture of what the Messiah would do in His ministry; i.e., take up common, dirty elements (water was practically undrinkable in those days) and transform them into something sweet and wonderful. Drunkenness is forbidden, for that is dissipation; instead, we are to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). The alcohol in wine is a picture of the Holy Spirit.



How many times is the imagery of God throughout the sacred Scripture linked to certain tastes? He institutes feasts in the Old Testament, such as the Passover. The items He includes in the Passover are carefully selected to remind the people through their taste buds of their rescue from the wrath of God when the angel of death passed over them in Egypt. Calvin once wrote about how appropriate it is that the fruit of the vine is used to symbolize for us the person of our Lord. On the one hand the crucifixion is the most bitter moment in human history, and the bitter aftertaste of wine Communicates this truth.



On this day our redemption was secured. Calvin thus concludes that wine serves well as a symbol of that which makes the heart glad. It also looks like blood, and Calvin comments that this is fitting, too, since the Lord would take something so common and set it apart and give it uncommon association just as He does with the bread. We are then to taste this and know that the Lord our God is good. Search through your concordance and see how many times the imagery of taste is used for God and for Christ throughout the Bible



Thus for churches to use grape juice instead of wine, is to destroy the imagery of the Holy Spirit in communion. Yes, some people refrain from any alcohol because they are concerned about drunkenness. But for a church to refuse to drink wine at communion is to implicitly reject the very image God has given us of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is no accident that modern evangelicalism has widely substituted grape juice for wine.



Thus, we need to reclaim this biblical imagery for communion celebrations to be complete. It is the Holy Spirit who gladdens our hearts, fills our lives with goodness, bursts the old wineskins and gives us new life. We want the Holy Spirit's fullness in our lives and our Churches. Therefore, as a symbol then of the Holy Spirit's work and power, real wine needs to be used instead of the "purple euphemism" in our communion.”



Some people wonder if this is really necessary. Does it really matter if we use grape juice as a symbol of real wine?

Sproul Continues….



“if it's only a symbol, then why not use peanut butter and jelly? God Himself declared what symbols we are to use. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal standards of Presbyterian Churches requires wine; hence all PCA and OPC elders are oath bound to serve wine in the Lord’s Supper. God did not choose grape juice to represent His precious Son's blood, but rather wine. He superintended creation so that sugar would ferment into alcohol, to symbolize the effects of His Holy Spirit leavening and working His will in our life. Let us not allow the wickedness of others, who abuse His good gifts, to steal from us, the imagery God Himself has provided. Let us approach His table with humility, and reverence and obedience.”

The Pastor Friend responded with "The verses that Sproul uses, at first blush, seem like a stretch. In that day, aged wine was the best stuff, so when speaking of a fine banquet he speaks of aged wine. Turning a description into law is a slippery slope. I would have to see a verse that specifically parallels fermented wine to the purity of Christ. "

And of course I responded with

"Anyway, I wanted to answer your question in regards to “The fruit of the Vine”. Ultimately I think the full answer will come with a complete study and understanding of the “Lord’s Supper”. Of course also with a fuller understanding of the Regulative Principle of worship. When we start to understand the nature of the Supper and what the Supper is will ultimately answer questions like Frequency, Elements of the Supper, etc… We must also understand what role the Passover played in the Lord’s Supper and what connection that the Passover has with the Lord’s Supper in order to get a complete picture of the Lord’s Supper. But I would like to give a short answer with regards to “Fruit of the Vine” which also bears some weight… With regards to Sproul’s quotes, I just wanted to sent material along that showed that Sproul used real wine in the sacrament. His premise which was not complete because typing it out by me since it came from a book and was to lengthy to quote was not foundational, but does hold weight of what the Supper is and what the Wine indicates within the Supper and the Imagery that wine communicates….



With regards to the “Fruit of the Vine” I am going to quote from “Given for You” by Keith Mathison and foreworded by R.C. Sproul…..



“Having examined what scripture teaches about wine in general, we must next examine what it says about the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper. As we have already seen, the institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. In each of these accounts, Jesus identifies the contents of the cup as the “fruit of the vine”. Because the Lord’s Supper was instituted during a Passover Meal, it can hardly be denied that this “fruit of the vine” was the same wine that was used at the Passover. And, as Joachim Jeremias notes, “to genema tes ampelou (‘the fruit of the vine’) for ‘wine’ is in the Judaism of the time of Jesus a set liturgical formula at the blessing of the cup, both before and after the meal.” In other words, when the historical and grammatical context is taken into account, there are simply no grounds to conclude that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with anything other than the same wine that was used in the Passover meal.”

Furthermore,



Theologian Rodman Williams provides another faulty argument against the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper.:



“In the three synoptic accounts of the Lord’s Supper the content of the cup is called “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:29, etc). This doubtless was wine; however, since wine is not directly mentioned in any of these accounts, it is irrelevant to insist (as some do) that wine must be used. Grape juice equally comes from “Fruit of the vine”.



This argument is similar to those made by Strong, Stevens, and Erickson. Unlike their arguments, however, it contains an obvious self-contradiction. Williams say that all three accounts of the Lord’s Supper called the content of the cup “the fruit of the vine”. Then he says that “fruit of the vine” mentioned in these accounts was doubtlessly wine. Then he contradicts himself by saying that wine is not directly mentioned in any of these accounts. If “the fruit of the vine” is directly mentioned in all three accounts, then wine is directly mentioned in all three accounts. The specific word wine need not be used, so long as an acknowledged synonym for wine is used. It is not irrelevant, therefore, to argue that wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper.



While it is not irrelevant to argue that wine should be used, it is entirely irrelevant to point out, as Williams does, that grape juice comes from the fruit of the vine and is therefore also permissible. Many fruits and berries grow on vines. If William’s argument is valid, why limit ourselves to the juice of grapes? Williams himself does not reject the use of wine simply because he believes grape juice also falls under the biblical meaning of the phrase “fruit of the vine”. This is evident when we see his suggestion that beverages such as milk and tea are also permissible. Milk and tea most certainly do not come from “the fruit of the vine”. William’s entire argument simply ignores the special Jewish liturgical usage of the phrase fruit of the vine. In the context of the Passover meal, the phrase meant “wine,” not any other fruit that happened to grow on vines or the juice that could be derived from those fruits. To argue in the manner that Williams argues is to ignore the historical and grammatical context of Jesus’ words.”"


I have not heard a response back from him yet since I just sent it this morning... Could I have put anything else in? What else should I have written with regards to wine? He wanted a verse that specifically parallels fermented wine to the purity of Christ. Did I leave anything out? I understand that I believe his main problem is a lack of understand of the regulative principle which I am currently discussing with him.....

Any Thoughts?
Thanks,

Michael

 

[Coram Deo]

I forgot to mention that he said in his letter to me that since the gospels used fruit of the vine, and since grape juice is fruit of the vine we can use it..... Which is why I quoted the stuff on the fruit of the vine.

 

[Coram Deo]

Ok, I got a response back from "the fruit of the vine" message that I sent..... Here is what he said...

"I too believe it was wine at the last super. I just think if the fermentation factor was so necessary Jesus would have said something a little more direct like, "as age purifies the wine, so I am pure..." or something like that. Instead he seems satisfied with a general title for the most common drink in the land that varied hugely in its degree of fermentation. The stuff the farmers used in the fields was so diluted (or you'd be drunk by noon) that hardly any fermentation was present. SO even the wine we use today is a 'guestimant' for what Jesus used. This is the problem I have with making biblical examples equal to commands. First it waters down (no pun intended) the explicit commands and second, you have to parse out the exact history of the example and duplicate it to be obedient. It seems wiser and safer to obey what is explicitly commanded, i.e. "This do in remembrance of me". "


Anybody? I am suprised no one responded yet! So anyone?

 

[Coram Deo]

ok, I am back... I am still surprised no responses after 79 views.... Anyway, here is my response to the Pastor friend for all the 79 people that had nothing to say... I have not received a response back from him yet but maybe tomorrow.. So any thoughts on what else I might be able to add to the letter below...

Now back to the Element of the Lord’s Supper… J I knew you believed that wine was used at the last supper, but the reason I quoted what I did was for other reasons… I believed that Christ did tell us to use wine by the phrase “Fruit of the Vine”. Because the phrase Fruit of the Vine was a special Jewish liturgical usage of the phrase fruit of the vine. The Jews only knew that term for wine and nothing else. It was only used for wine… So that is our key passage of Christ telling us directly… When Christ instituted the Holy Supper everyone present knew exactly what fruit of the vine meant… It meant wine… But what about fermentation you asked? Well I am only assuming that you have read some modern theologians work that fermentation was different in that era. That is a false claim…. Let me give you a bit of winemaking 101 today and in biblical times…



This a process description that is taken out from a Winery…



“After the harvest, the grapes are crushed and allowed to ferment. Red wine is made from the must (pulp) of red or black grapes that undergo fermentation together with the grape skins, while white wine is usually made by fermenting juice pressed from white grapes, but can also be made from must extracted from red grapes with minimal contact with the grapes' skins. Rosé wines are made from red grapes where the juice is allowed to stay in contact with the dark skins long enough to pick up a pinkish color, but little of the tannins contained in the skins.

During this primary fermentation, which often takes between one and two weeks, yeast converts most of the sugars in the grape juice into ethanol (alcohol). After the primary fermentation, the liquid is transferred to vessels for the secondary fermentation. Here, the remaining sugars are slowly converted into alcohol and the wine becomes clear. Some wine is then allowed to age in oak barrels before bottling, which add extra aromas to the wine, while others are bottled directly. The time from harvest to drinking can vary from a few months for Beaujolais nouveau wines to over twenty years for top wines. However, only about 10% of all red and 5% of white wine will taste better after 5 years, compared to after one year.”



You see the Grapes ferment on their own… Nothing is added… Grapes have the unique quality of having a natural parasite, or bacteria, on their skin, which is a leaven that causes the grape juice to ferment. Age has nothing to due with the alcohol levels… Once the sugars in the grapes are exhausted by the parasites the fermentation process is done…. This held true in biblical times and it holds true today…. Aged wine only means it has ages and has taken on aromas which make it taste better. But the Alcohol levels do not change… Bad quality wines have impurities to the wine that the Filtering process removes. When Christ brought the best wine it was the best tasting wine because all the impurities had been removed by the filtering process if it was made without a miracle. Nothing of the Alcohol levels changed…



The issue is today we have bred our own problems…. We have had a stance of total abstinence in our nation’s history that today some peoples bodies are not use to the level of alcohol… Do you know that in the Puritan Era the monthly allowance of alcohol was 130 gallons.. The same held true in Luther’s Germany and Calvin’s Geneva. If I was to drink a 130 gallons today in one month in my life I would be in danger of drunkenness’s.. The little in the Lord’s Supper would never ever ever make anybody drunk or have a problem with Alcohol. In fact one gets more Alcohol in a tablespoon of Cough Med, or in Cookies made with Vanilla then in a little tumble glass at the Lord’s Supper.



You see the body of Christ is perfect and without sin and leaven is a symbol of sin throughout the scriptures. So Christ body must be represented by unleaven elements…. Here is a run down of all the processes…

“As we use unleavened bread, likewise we use unleavened drink, which is wine. The unleavened state of the "fruit of the vine" (Matt. 26:29) is wine; not grape juice.

Grapes have the unique quality of having a natural parasite, or bacteria, on their skin, which is a leaven that causes the grape juice to ferment. Natural. grape juice, be it fresh or cooked, has this leaven in it. The only way to totally free grape juice of it's leaven, is to allow it to completely ferment. In the process of fermentation, the leaven or other impurities of grape juice, are separated, as wine is produced. Impurities settle to the bottom, and the wine (pure and free of leaven) can be drawn off. So, the fruit of the vine is made unleavened by removing the leaven, which is already, by nature, there.

So, the bread is made unleavened by withholding leaven; and the juice is made unleavened by taking away the leaven. Although, in both cases, the end result is an unleavened product.



So Grape Juice has leaven in it since it is not fermented and leaven is symbolized throughout scripture as sin…. This is why the Hebrews removed ALL leaven from their households before the Passover as a sign of purging the leaven (sin)… Christ is our Passover, He is our Sacrifice…. We partake of the Sacrificial meal by Spiritually feasting on his body through the holy spirit by way of a conduit to which the true believer will receive that nourishment by the sign (the unleaven bread and the unleaven Wine) through which it represents and it seals our participation in the Covenant of Grace (The New Covenant) by the body and blood of Christ.



Even if the fermentation process was different some how which I believe I have proven to not be the case…. Christ did tell us to use the Fruit of the Vine which is only ever used as a liturgical phrase for fermented Wine…. Even if the Alcohol was different some how the scripture does not tell us that and so it would not be a command that this level must be used or that level must be used, instead we have a command “Fruit of the Vine” which is Wine regardless of the levels of Alcohol but it must be fermented… But as I have proven the Alcohol levels remain constant and so this still does not represent a problem……

 

[VictorBravo]

Grapes have the unique quality of having a natural parasite, or bacteria, on their skin, which is a leaven that causes the grape juice to ferment. Natural. grape juice, be it fresh or cooked, has this leaven in it. The only way to totally free grape juice of it's leaven, is to allow it to completely ferment. In the process of fermentation, the leaven or other impurities of grape juice, are separated, as wine is produced. Impurities settle to the bottom, and the wine (pure and free of leaven) can be drawn off. So, the fruit of the vine is made unleavened by removing the leaven, which is already, by nature, there.

Michael, I haven't weighed in because I've been quite busy. As I've said elsewhere, I'm a winemaker and there are several others on the board who are as well. The basics of fermentation have not changed.

One correction, though: it's not a bacteria but a yeast--just like in bread. It is found naturally on grapeskins and causes fermentation almost immediately after pressing. I've done it with my own grapes I grow in the backyard.

But, because it is yeast, it is just like the leaven in bread. So I think pressing the leaven argument is a bit shaky.

My take has always been this: Grapes ripen in the Fall. Passover was in Spring. The only kind of grape juice they would have been drinking had to be fermented wine. Otherwise it would be unpalatable and rotten.

 

[Coram Deo]

Hi Thanks for the reply....

One thing though, Yeast is made up of parasites, etc... Here is a quote from Wikipedia on Yeast..

"Yeasts are a growth form of eukaryotic microorganisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with approximately 1,500 species described.[1] Most reproduce asexually by budding, although a few do by binary fission. Yeasts are unicellular, although some species with yeast forms may become multicellular through the formation of a string of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae, or true hyphae as seen in most molds.[2] Yeast size can vary greatly depending on the species, typically measuring 3–4 µm in diameter, although some yeasts can reach over 40 µm.[3]"

So it is not incorrect to say Bacteria or Parasites........ They also are on the grapes always as wild yeast.... Which is a leavening... So to remove the leaven is to let it ferment.. Right?

The quote that you mentioned that I gave was from a christian who owns a winery and wrote an article with regards to wine and leavening.... His family has been in the winemaking business for generations..... Is he incorrect?

If the fermentation does not remove the leaven how did the Jews have wine in their houses during Passover since they were told to remove all leaven from their homes......

The christian who owns a winery who I quoted makes more sense since they were told to remove all the leaven....

And since Christ body is without Sin and leaven represents Sin, Wine makes the perfect choice. It seems very logical to me....

Thoughts?

Grapes have the unique quality of having a natural parasite, or bacteria, on their skin, which is a leaven that causes the grape juice to ferment. Natural. grape juice, be it fresh or cooked, has this leaven in it. The only way to totally free grape juice of it's leaven, is to allow it to completely ferment. In the process of fermentation, the leaven or other impurities of grape juice, are separated, as wine is produced. Impurities settle to the bottom, and the wine (pure and free of leaven) can be drawn off. So, the fruit of the vine is made unleavened by removing the leaven, which is already, by nature, there.

Michael, I haven't weighed in because I've been quite busy. As I've said elsewhere, I'm a winemaker and there are several others on the board who are as well. The basics of fermentation have not changed.

One correction, though: it's not a bacteria but a yeast--just like in bread. It is found naturally on grapeskins and causes fermentation almost immediately after pressing. I've done it with my own grapes I grow in the backyard.

But, because it is yeast, it is just like the leaven in bread. So I think pressing the leaven argument is a bit shaky.

My take has always been this: Grapes ripen in the Fall. Passover was in Spring. The only kind of grape juice they would have been drinking had to be fermented wine. Otherwise it would be unpalatable and rotten.

 

[AV1611]

What is his issue with wine?

 

[Coram Deo]

He has couple of issues....

1. Fruit of the Vine does not mean always Wine, even though he believed Christ used Wine. But Grape Juice also comes from the Fruit of the Vine and he thinks if Christ wanted only wine he would have said something more direct like ""as age purifies the wine, so I am pure..."".

2. In Biblical Times, Wine was not as strong as wine is today and he said it varied very hugely across the land in degree of fermentation. So he said " SO even the wine we use today is a 'guestimant' for what Jesus used." He continued with "This is the problem I have with making biblical examples equal to commands."

That is about it, expect he has really limited understanding of the Regulative Principle for which we are also discussing.... I gave him a 30 page dissertation I wrote on the regulative principle... He has not read it yet, but from what I have talked to him about since he has never heard of the regulative principle before, he see it as solely old covenant... My dissertation contains both example from Old and New.... But we will see how he comes out in the end....

What is his issue with wine?

 

[VictorBravo]

Hi Thanks for the reply....


So it is not incorrect to say Bacteria or Parasites........ They also are on the grapes always as wild yeast.... Which is a leavening... So to remove the leaven is to let it ferment.. Right?

I just wanted to clarify that it is the yeast, not the bacteria, that causes fermentation. In natural fermentation, the yeast has to grow faster than the bacteria so that it kills it off. If that doesn't happen, you get vinegar. There are uses for certain kinds of bacteria, such as for making sherry. But that occurs after fermentation.

The quote that you mentioned that I gave was from a christian who owns a winery and wrote an article with regards to wine and leavening.... His family has been in the winemaking business for generations..... Is he incorrect?

The quoted portion about the wine making process is accurate. I can't tell who is talking about the leaven. As for the use of the term "parasite", it seems kind of odd. I never thought of natural yeast as a parasite because it doesn't really take anything from the grape as it grows. It survives on stray sugars that leak through the skin, and it really goes to work after pressing.

If the fermentation does not remove the leaven how did the Jews have wine in their houses during Passover since they were told to remove all leaven from their homes......

I think the easiest thing here is to think about what "leaven" was to the Hebrews. It was something added to bread. They probably never knew that yeast lived on grapes naturally and that it was the same sort of organism that made bread rise. I think we should avoid trying to read back our modern biological knowledge to their understanding. Leaven was for bread.

The christian who owns a winery who I quoted makes more sense since they were told to remove all the leaven....

And since Christ body is without Sin and leaven represents Sin, Wine makes the perfect choice. It seems very logical to me....

Thoughts?

I don't think leaven always is sin. Remember the parable of the kingdom of God--how it is like a bit of leaven? Mt. 13:33. We don't need to push analogies to the extreme. Christ told us to drink the fruit of the vine in rememberence of him. The fruit of the vine he drank had to be fermented because it was preserved for about half a year.

It doesn't matter that the yeast that caused it to ferment is similar to yeast that causes bread to bread to rise.

 

[Coram Deo]

I understand we should never try to read back our modern biological knowledge into scripture... but I would assume that if God told the Hebrews to remove all leaven from their houses and Wine was a leaven even without the Hebrews knowledge, God would have told them to remove the wine out of their houses because it contain leaven... But since it did not contain leaven God never commanded it to be remove.. Otherwise unknowingly the hebrews would have broken God's command to remove leaven... But instead God command the use of wine for the Passover meal. To my mind, God would not command them to remove leaven from their houses and then make them sin by not removing wine if it contained leaven even unknowingly....

As for the Matthew passage... It is only a parable.... So not to be taken literally... But Leaven expands... So the principle there is the Kingdom of heaven expands like leaven does.... But literal leaven has always represented sin....

Just my

If the fermentation does not remove the leaven how did the Jews have wine in their houses during Passover since they were told to remove all leaven from their homes......

I think the easiest thing here is to think about what "leaven" was to the Hebrews. It was something added to bread. They probably never knew that yeast lived on grapes naturally and that it was the same sort of organism that made bread rise. I think we should avoid trying to read back our modern biological knowledge to their understanding. Leaven was for bread.

The christian who owns a winery who I quoted makes more sense since they were told to remove all the leaven....

And since Christ body is without Sin and leaven represents Sin, Wine makes the perfect choice. It seems very logical to me....

Thoughts?

I don't think leaven always is sin. Remember the parable of the kingdom of God--how it is like a bit of leaven? Mt. 13:33. We don't need to push analogies to the extreme. Christ told us to drink the fruit of the vine in rememberence of him. The fruit of the vine he drank had to be fermented because it was preserved for about half a year.

It doesn't matter that the yeast that caused it to ferment is similar to yeast that causes bread to bread to rise.

 

[SRoper]

Hi Thanks for the reply....

One thing though, Yeast is made up of parasites, etc... Here is a quote from Wikipedia on Yeast..

"Yeasts are a growth form of eukaryotic microorganisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with approximately 1,500 species described.[1] Most reproduce asexually by budding, although a few do by binary fission. Yeasts are unicellular, although some species with yeast forms may become multicellular through the formation of a string of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae, or true hyphae as seen in most molds.[2] Yeast size can vary greatly depending on the species, typically measuring 3–4 µm in diameter, although some yeasts can reach over 40 µm.[3]"

So it is not incorrect to say Bacteria or Parasites........ They also are on the grapes always as wild yeast.... Which is a leavening... So to remove the leaven is to let it ferment.. Right?

The quote that you mentioned that I gave was from a christian who owns a winery and wrote an article with regards to wine and leavening.... His family has been in the winemaking business for generations..... Is he incorrect?

Yes he is wrong. Yeast is fungi; it is not bacteria. It is yeast that is responsible for turning the sugars to ethanol.

 

[VictorBravo]

To my mind, God would not command them to remove leaven from their houses and then make them sin by not removing wine if it contained leaven even unknowingly....

My point is that they would not be sinning unknowingly because leaven (the word in Ex. 12:15) was for bread raising, not for wine. The individual components of the leaven were not ever a symbol of sin, just the leaven itself.

It's sort of like saying: God told the Israelites not to eat pork, and pork is made of protein. So when he said it was OK to eat beef (which is also made of protein) he made them sin unknowingly. It was not the components that made one unclean and another clean, it was God's command.

But this probably is all a sidetrack. I agree that wine has always been wine and that grape juice in Spring had to be wine.

 

[SRoper]

I wasn't reading carefully. I realize now that the author of the quote never used the word bacteria, but you introduced it.

 

[AV1611]

He has couple of issues....

1. Fruit of the Vine does not mean always Wine, even though he believed Christ used Wine. But Grape Juice also comes from the Fruit of the Vine and he thinks if Christ wanted only wine he would have said something more direct like ""as age purifies the wine, so I am pure..."".

2. In Biblical Times, Wine was not as strong as wine is today and he said it varied very hugely across the land in degree of fermentation. So he said " SO even the wine we use today is a 'guestimant' for what Jesus used." He continued with "This is the problem I have with making biblical examples equal to commands."

That is about it, expect he has really limited understanding of the Regulative Principle for which we are also discussing.... I gave him a 30 page dissertation I wrote on the regulative principle... He has not read it yet, but from what I have talked to him about since he has never heard of the regulative principle before, he see it as solely old covenant... My dissertation contains both example from Old and New.... But we will see how he comes out in the end....

Similar to what I used to believe then. What convinced me was that none of the Lexicons support such a differentiation between fermented (wine) and non fermented (grape juice). The issue about the strength of wine is a non-starter, if it is wrong to consume alcohol then Christ should have been teetotal which he wasn't.

Have a listen to this to see if you want to recomend it to him, it may help:
SermonAudio.com - A Biblical View of Alcohol

 

[Coram Deo]

Just a thought.... Even if they had grape juice in the fall, from what I have read of fermentation and grape especially in the heat of the middle east the grapes would be fermented in 5 to 8 days... Even if left on the vine.... So according to experts they would have only had grape juice for the first week at best......

Anyway, I still think that the leaven is yeast both in the bread and in the grape juice... So by fermentation the yeast is destroyed allowing the wine to be unleaven thus presto a picture of Christ body... but like you said.... The issue is that Christ used fermented wine, and that is what we are suppose to use.....

I agree that wine has always been wine and that grape juice in Spring had to be wine.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

The whole non-fermented / fermented question is really begging the question overall. Wine, in biblical times, or before, meant wine. No one that I recall ever became "tipsy" or "drunk" with grapejuice, which is why we have prohibitions on excess of wine, not grapejuice.

But, one thing to consider, is the difference between "kingdom wine" and regular household wine. Jesus made "the best wine ever" (kingdom wine) during the wedding feast at Cana. Paul tells Timothy to take a little wine for your stomache, and the disciple and Jesus (like every other Jew during Passover at the time) drank from the cups of blessing which were household wine. household wine was 1 part "wine" and 8 parts water. It was not like the strawberry schnapps (sp?) and Samuel Adams beer some drink today. That concerning household wine. It was weak, but was used to purify water that was often not good. (Like bleach is used today during hurricanes when water needs to be disinfected.)

Kingdom wine is a whole other notation. The wine Christ made, though Spurgeon would like to contend it, was WINE - the very best wine you could ever taste - Kingdom wine. Even the tipsy master of ceremonies at the wedding thought it to be "best" he had - usually what is brought out by rich people first, and then replaced with the "regular stuff (houshold)" when people get drunk and don't know the difference.

For the Supper, household wine was the norm.

Plain bread and plain wine. Common. Even on a practical note, one would have to wonder how long, without refridgeration, grape juice would actually last before it truned into wine. I'd imagine it wasn't long. Proverbs tells us of the WINE turning int he glass (i.e. fermenting), and that is given for gladness.

To read into this thing about "fermentation" being a "bad thing" goes against just about every OT text on the "gladability factor" (my word) that wine exhibits in the drinker.

And go figure......I defend the biblical point, but hate the taste of wine.

 

[thekingsknight]

Grape juice, huh? What would he say to this?
"But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, and saying: 'We played the flute for you, And you did not dance; We mourned to you, And you did not lament.' For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' But wisdom is justified by her children."
Matthew 11:16-19

 

[Coram Deo]

This is interesting...... I was trying to look up household wine to no avail, but found a Hebrew Parish Blog about Wine and Seder with Man, Woman, and children... It is Jewish LAW that All Man, Woman and Children MUST drink 4 cups of wine.... The wine that we buy in the stores.... Wow..... Here is a quote....

We can start with the explicit statement by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in Bavli Pesachim 108a-b that women must indeed drink 4 cups of wine on the Seder night:

ואמר ר' יהושע בן לוי נשים חייבות בארבעה כוסות הללו שאף הן היו באותו הנס

Women were also part of the miracle, and so they are obligated in these 4 cups.

and again

Rabbi Yehuda and Tanna Kamma maintains that everyone is obligated in these 4 cups -- men, women and children.

The Yerushalmi should shed some helpful light on this, in that it has a parallel brayta, which is a bit more comprehensive. It is once again in the gemara on the first Mishna stating that everyone -- even the poorest in Israel, must drink 4 cups. The brayta reads as follows:

תני צריך הוא אדם לשמח את אשתו ואת בניו ברגל במה משמחן ביין.
רבי יודה אומר נשים בראוי להן וקטנים בראוי להם
נשים בראוי להן כגון מסנים וצוצלין
וקטנים בראוי להן כגון אגוזין ולוזין.
אמרין הוה רבי טרפון עביד כן.

מניין לארבעה כוסות רבי יוחנן בשם ר' ר' בנייה כנגד ארבע גאולות

Thus, we have the brayta about men, women and children fulfilling their obligation of happiness.

That is alot of wine for children, especially for nonwatered down wine..... But I guess the Hebrew children are use to it, unlike Americans....