Non-alcoholic wine

[Edward]

I remember sometime back a discussion on wine vs. grape juice in administering the sacrament. Some members of the board proved ignorant of the concept of alcohol free wine, so when I ran across this story today, I decided to post a link here for the edification of any who still are in darkness on the existence of this item.

Brussels bets on alcohol-free wine as drinking habits across EU change​

Cheers! Brussels bets on alcohol-free wine

The European Commission recently presented measures to strengthen the competitiveness of the wine sector and that includes the promotion of alcohol-free wine. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

 

[MW]

Good timing. I was just finishing up a section on Hodge's Systematic Theology. I will paste it while it is fresh:

By wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood “the juice of the grape;” and “the juice of the grape” in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That οἶνος in the Bible, when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day. And it may safely be said that there is not a scholar on the continent of Europe, who has the least doubt on the subject. Those in the early Church, whose zeal for temperance led them to exclude wine from the Lord’s table, were consistent enough to substitute water. They were called Tatiani, from the name of their leader, or Encratitæ, Hydroparastatæ, or Aquarii, from their principles. They not only abstained from the use of wine and denounced as “improbos atque impios” those who drank it, but they also repudiated animal food and marriage, regarding the devil as their author.[1] They soon disappeared from history. The plain meaning of the Bible on this subject has controlled the mind of the Church, and it is to be hoped will continue to control it till the end of time.[2]

---

[1] Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, sub voce Σύναξις; edit. Amsterdam, 1728, vol. 2, p. 1123.
[2] This is not the place for the discussion of what, in this country, is called “The Wine Question.” The reader will find it amply ventilated in the Princeton Review for April and October, 1841, in two articles from the pen of Rev. John Maclean, D. D., and more recently by the Rev. Lyman H. Atwater, D. D., in the same Review, October, 1871, and January, 1872.

 

[Edward]

By wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood “the juice of the grape;” and “the juice of the grape” in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That οἶνος in the Bible, when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question.

That certainly supports the use of non-alcoholic wine.

 

[MW]

That certainly supports the use of non-alcoholic wine.

Do you mean "dealcoholized wine?"

 

[KMK]

From the article: "Dealcoholisation does, however, alter the taste of the wine so other ingredients and aromas are added afterwards." The headline calls it "alcohol-free wine" which doesn't even make sense. You can call it wine if you want to, but it no longer fits the definition of the word. “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;” (Eph 5:18)

 

[EvanF]

By wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood “the juice of the grape;” and “the juice of the grape” in that state which was, and is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That οἶνος in the Bible, when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day. And it may safely be said that there is not a scholar on the continent of Europe, who has the least doubt on the subject. Those in the early Church, whose zeal for temperance led them to exclude wine from the Lord’s table, were consistent enough to substitute water. They were called Tatiani, from the name of their leader, or Encratitæ, Hydroparastatæ, or Aquarii, from their principles. They not only abstained from the use of wine and denounced as “improbos atque impios” those who drank it, but they also repudiated animal food and marriage, regarding the devil as their author.[1] They soon disappeared from history. The plain meaning of the Bible on this subject has controlled the mind of the Church, and it is to be hoped will continue to control it till the end of time.[2]

This argument is rather easily dismissed.

Isaiah 65:8 (the juice in a bunch of grapes is called "תִּיר֣וֹשׁ" - "new wine")

Revelation 6:6 (the black horseman who brings famine is instructed to make dear the fruits of the wheat and barley harvest but not to hurt the wine or oil, meaning the fruits of the grape and olive harvest not the the already processed goods derived from those fruits.

The fact that the words for wine are almost always used of fermented juice in the texts is hardly proof that unfermented juice was categorically excluded from the definition given the extremely short-lived nature of the unfermented juice and that it was almost entirely used for fermentation. The only fresh juice not trodden out in the winepress was that which might occasionally be squeezed from fruits reserved for eating fresh, making any question of when the juice becomes wine all but meaningless in that age.

Further, we know that Jews considered fresh squeezed juice or even water brewed with raisins to be wine for ceremonial purposes, although considered of poor quality. Cooked wine, such as might be called "de-alcoholized", is also considered by them to be wine, although again of potentially poorer quality. The wine used in ceremonies must be of the best quality available.

In making this argument, Hodge seems clearly to be reacting to contemporary tee-totalers, as he specifically mentions them, and admits that those in the historical church never considered the question (which was as meaningless to them as it was to the ancient Jews). He also interestingly refers to the Tatiani, who substituted fermented wine not with unfermented juice, but with water, likely demonstrating that even these early temperance advocates saw no point in differentiating fresh grape juice from wine as we now seek to do.

 

[MW]

This argument is rather easily dismissed.

It might be easily dismissed when you ignore the qualification: "That οἶνος in the Bible, when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape." But then you haven't really addressed the argument.

 

[EvanF]

It might be easily dismissed when you ignore the qualification: "That οἶνος in the Bible, when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the fermented juice of the grape." But then you haven't really addressed the argument.

The qualifier "new" is not in the text - only the translation, sometimes. The Hebrew word certainly is used of new wine, but most often of the unambiguously fermented variety. And yet, it also is used of the unfermented juice of grapes. The Greek word used in Revelation is simply οἶνον without qualification. The argument that these words used without qualification only mean fermented grapejuice fails.

 

[MW]

The qualifier "new" is not in the text - only the translation, sometimes. The Hebrew word certainly is used of new wine, but most often of the unambiguously fermented variety. And yet, it also is used of the unfermented juice of grapes. The Greek word used in Revelation is simply οἶνον without qualification. The argument that these words used without qualification only mean fermented grapejuice fails.

Eph. 5:18 "καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ," indicates οἶνος makes people intoxicated.

 

[EvanF]

Eph. 5:18 "καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ," indicates οἶνος makes people intoxicated.

Eph. 5:18 indicates that drunkenness with wine causes riotousness. It does not indicate that all wine makes people intoxicated, let alone that intoxicability is essential to the definition of wine, which is not at all Paul's point. Indeed, even fermented, intoxicating wine need not make people drunken or riotous. If we read "wherein is riot" as referring to wine, rather than to drunkenness with wine, then we should abstain from wine totally.

Nevertheless, as far as Paul and the Ephesians were concerned, wine was normally both fermented and intoxicating, and that normal wine is what was normally used in the sacrament. His warning is perfectly understandable in context without specifying for them that weakly-fermented, unfermented, or cooked wine may or may not actually cause drunkenness. The warning against drunkenness is not an instruction requiring a threshold alcohol content for the wine of the sacrament.

 

[Edward]

You can call it wine if you want to, but it no longer fits the definition of the word.

Well, if one wants to use the Internal Revenue Code to resolve theological issues.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

What I don't understand is why I still need to show my ID to buy Welch's sparkling grape juice.

 

[Northern Crofter]

What I don't understand is why I still need to show my ID to buy Welch's sparkling grape juice.

I assumed you were jesting. But then I noticed you are in Iowa, one of the leading states to bring in Prohibition, so maybe not (in which case, apologies).

 

[MW]

Eph. 5:18 indicates that drunkenness with wine causes riotousness. It does not indicate that all wine makes people intoxicated, let alone that intoxicability is essential to the definition of wine, which is not at all Paul's point.

According to Eph. 5:18 one can get drunk on οἶνος. I don't see how you can get around that, no matter how valiantly you try.

 

[Frisian Gardener]

I assumed you were jesting. But then I noticed you are in Iowa, one of the leading states to bring in Prohibition, so maybe not (in which case, apologies).

The Dutch piety around here still somewhat frowns on alcohol. Maybe this was part of the cultural effort during WWI and following that they were trying to prove they weren't German? In 1918 an arsonist who didn't know, or didn't care, that "Dutch" and "Deutsch" are different burned a countryside CRC to the ground.

 

[ZackF]

From the article: "Dealcoholisation does, however, alter the taste of the wine so other ingredients and aromas are added afterwards." The headline calls it "alcohol-free wine" which doesn't even make sense. You can call it wine if you want to, but it no longer fits the definition of the word. “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;” (Eph 5:18)

Sounds like a franken-food.

 

[SolaScriptura]

If nonalcoholic wine tastes as bad as nonalcoholic beer...I'd rather just go with grape juice. (assuming one is considering "nonalcoholic wine" because in one's ecclesial context regular wine is a nonstarter.)

 

[Frisian Gardener]

If nonalcoholic wine tastes as bad as nonalcoholic beer...I'd rather just go with grape juice. (assuming one is considering "nonalcoholic wine" because in one's ecclesial context regular wine is a nonstarter.)

The NA beers vary in quality. Guinness 0 is fantastic. Heineken 0.0 is mildly refreshing and inoffensive. Blue Moon NA reminds me of the time the dishwasher backed up into the kitchen sink.

 

[arapahoepark]

The NA beers vary in quality. Guinness 0 is fantastic. Heineken 0.0 is mildly refreshing and inoffensive. Blue Moon NA reminds me of the time the dishwasher backed up into the kitchen sink.

Ew!

 

[Polanus1561]

tariffs gonna hit that European wine hard...

 

[EvanF]

According to Eph. 5:18 one can get drunk on οἶνος. I don't see how you can get around that, no matter how valiantly you try.

"One can get drunk on wine" is not in the verse. It's a logical inference that necessarily follows from the verse, and I have no problem with that inference (one certainly can get drunk on wine in the right circumstances, hence the warning), but it isn't even the inference you're arguing. You're arguing, "If it cannot get one drunk, it isn't wine", which is not actually a logical inference that follows from what's written. It's like if the warning were "be not blinded by light", and you inferred that "one can be blinded by light" (true), and thus that "if it cannot blind, it is not light" (false). Not all light is blinding, and not all wine, fermented or otherwise, is necessarily intoxicating. The warnings do not rely on all wine being intoxicating or all light being blinding for validity. We are not to be drunken with wine, or with any strong drink, regardless of how much of any drink it takes to become drunken.

The verse is not an obstacle that I must valiantly try to get around. It doesn't teach us that only well fermented and uncooked wine is acceptable for the sacramant. It merely warns us not to be drunken with wine, and this I affirm without exception.

Rather, using this verse as a proof text for the belief that only intoxicating wine is acceptable for the sacrament is the valiant try. If this belief were true, God would have supplied us in his word to ensure the selection of appropriate sacramental wines.

I understand the need to push back against those who say that using intoxicating wine for the sacrament is a demerit, but going in the opposite direction of demeriting the use of unfermented, weakly fermented, or cooked wine is a different species of the same error.

 

[MW]

Rather, using this verse as a proof text for the belief that only intoxicating wine is acceptable for the sacrament is the valiant try. If this belief were true, God would have supplied us in his word to ensure the selection of appropriate sacramental wines.

God gives wine to refresh the heart of man. We take the natural gift and use it by His blessing as a sacramental sign according to Christ's appointment. If you want to manufacture something else I leave it to you to act accordingly.

 

[Edward]

If nonalcoholic wine tastes as bad as nonalcoholic beer

Ever try a Bitburger Drive? Tastes better than Bud Light. Of course, pretty much anything does.

As for the Alcohol free wine - apparently the EU bureaucrats are embracing it in recognition of the Islamic conquest of Europe. If it's good enough for the Mullahs, shouldn't it be good enough for you?

 

[davejonescue]

I like Texas Select, its an NA Beer. Tastes pretty good, but pricey so I dont get very often. I think it is around $10 a 6 pack. Ive tried Busch NA and it is pretty good too. I'll take a 12 pack of that to the Lake if I know everybody else is going to be drinking. Just as good as a regular beer when its ice cold out a cooler.

 

[WithinThePale]

The NA beers vary in quality. Guinness 0 is fantastic. Heineken 0.0 is mildly refreshing and inoffensive. Blue Moon NA reminds me of the time the dishwasher backed up into the kitchen sink.

If Guinness 0 is good NA beer, then I now know that I have no need to try actual beer (have tried 3 0s, Guinness, Deschutes (IPA?) and Heineken, all vile)

 

[Andrew35]

Ever try a Bitburger Drive? Tastes better than Bud Light. Of course, pretty much anything does.

As for the Alcohol free wine - apparently the EU bureaucrats are embracing it in recognition of the Islamic conquest of Europe. If it's good enough for the Mullahs, shouldn't it be good enough for you?

What is it with Classic Leftism and hatred of alcohol? Even Chesterton is fighting against this impulse, when you read him (see discussions on "Ibsenites").

I'm really suspicious of all these "studies" showing how bad even a tiny bit is for you as well, btw. Very convenient.

 

[Pomopu]

I remember that thread. We fight so hard for words to mean something, for pronouns to have some actual objective referent in the world, for "he" to refer to a "he." At some point, if you subtract one thing from another thing, that thing is no longer the thing that it once was. Or, it is a monstrous version of what it should be. Take away grammar sentence from no it longer this becomes real a syntax nonsenical that. . . take away alcohol from the thing we call wine? It's like taking the chairs from a table, the feathers from a down pillow, the fry from the french fry, the crisp from the cracker, the sugar from the gatorade, the white blood cells from the blood, the melatonin from the skin, the color from the eye, the bend from the joint, the passion from the lovemaking, the bark from the dog, the hunt from the lion, the crown from the king, the sense from nonsense.

 

[davejonescue]

I remember that thread. We fight so hard for words to mean something, for pronouns to have some actual objective referent in the world, for "he" to refer to a "he." At some point, if you subtract one thing from another thing, that thing is no longer the thing that it once was. Or, it is a monstrous version of what it should be. Take away grammar sentence from no it longer this becomes real a syntax nonsenical that. . . take away alcohol from the thing we call wine? It's like taking the chairs from a table, the feathers from a down pillow, the fry from the french fry, the crisp from the cracker, the sugar from the gatorade, the white blood cells from the blood, the melatonin from the skin, the color from the eye, the bend from the joint, the passion from the lovemaking, the bark from the dog, the hunt from the lion, the crown from the king, the sense from nonsense.

It isn't that serious. It would be if wine (or other beverages) were being replaced commercially with non-alcoholic counterparts, but they are not. Anybody who wants alcohol can get it in most places, and the non-alcoholic variety is merely marketing to a specific demographic that doesn't want to consume alcohol. The same goes for congregations and communion. Both are readily available, and the existence of both is not endangering the existence of either. In the end it is just a beverage. John came neither eating nor drinking, and Jesus partook. John was called the greatest prophet, and Jesus is our Lord. Yet both were accused of being ungodly; either for refraining OR partaking socially. People should just do what works best for them.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'm really suspicious of all these "studies" showing how bad even a tiny bit is for you as well, btw. Very convenient.

A little bit of food kills you in the long run too, just like swallowing saliva.

 

[Pomopu]

It isn't that serious. It would be if wine (or other beverages) were being replaced commercially with non-alcoholic counterparts, but they are not. Anybody who wants alcohol can get it in most places, and the non-alcoholic variety is merely marketing to a specific demographic that doesn't want to consume alcohol. The same goes for congregations and communion. Both are readily available, and the existence of both is not endangering the existence of either. In the end it is just a beverage. John came neither eating nor drinking, and Jesus partook. John was called the greatest prophet, and Jesus is our Lord. Yet both were accused of being ungodly; either for refraining OR partaking socially. People should just do what works best for them.

All that you say is true, and gracious, and kind. But Lord willing I'll shepherd my future church not to use an amalgamative liquid.