Wine or Juice? A possible solution.

[non dignus]

Pun intended. Is it the Lutherans who hold it has to be wine, not juice in the sacrament? A pastor once said he would serve just a drop of wine in water to solve the teetotaler's dilemna.

Should we have two kinds of grape at the table when we are endeavoring to have unity? Would a possible solution be mixing a little wine with juice to more closely resemble the low alcohol wine Jesus probably used?

 

[CalsFarmer]

 

[Mike]

Originally posted by non dignus
Is it the Lutherans who hold it has to be wine, not juice in the sacrament?

Many groups hold to that view.

Originally posted by non dignus
A pastor once said he would serve just a drop of wine in water to solve the teetotaler's dilemna.

I've seen this view before. It seems like this no more preserves its being wine than using grape juice.

Originally posted by non dignus
Should we have two kinds of grape at the table when we are endeavoring to have unity?

I would tend to think not. It seems like there fidelity to the institution of Holy Communion would require us to use wine. That being said, it's probably a good thing I am not in oversight over anyone (or remotely close to it.)

I would also note that I do not believe the use of juice to be a grave error or anything, but that it does depart from how the Supper ought be practiced.

Originally posted by non dignus
Would a possible solution be mixing a little wine with juice to more closely resemble the low alcohol wine Jesus probably used?

1. Wine mixed with juice is not wine; it is wine mixed with juice. I don't think anyone is suggesting wine because the element must have ethanol present, but rather in mimic of wine as what is recorded was used in the institution.

2. I have yet to see compelling evidence that Jesus' wine was less alcoholic than ours. The dilution theory has some evidence, but I have seen absolutely no evidense that would remotely support the less alcoholic theory. Did grapes' sugar content change in the last 2000 years?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Firstly, what evidence is there that Jesus used "low alcohol wine"?

Secondly, the biblical command to abstain from things in certain believers' presence that would likely cause those particular people to stumble or sin (be it alcohol, meat or you name it) cannot be said to apply to the commanded elements of worship; otherwise we would be biblically forced to discontinue things like the singing of the Psalms and the preaching of the Word in a particularly expository manner if someone claimed to believe those things were unbiblical (and there are preachers who claim a narrative approach to preaching is the biblical model) - and we would all hopefully agree that the notion of that approach to worship being biblical is absurd.

 

[Peter]

Where does Jesus stipulate the exact alcoholic content of the "fruit of the vine?"

The argument is being made that there is nothing in scripture to indicate it was non-alcoholic, well, neither is there anything to indicate it was.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
Where does Jesus stipulate the exact alcoholic content of the "fruit of the vine?"

The argument is being made that there is nothing in scripture to indicate it was non-alcoholic, well, neither is there anything to indicate it was.

I think we can say that:

1. It is inconclusive whether the wine was of modern alcohol content

2. It is inconclusive whether the wine was of "low" alcohol content

But we cannot say, based on the nature of juice, the weather of Palestine, and biology, that it was of no alcohol content.

I dare anyone to drink a bottle of Welch's after leaving it OUTSIDE the refrigerator in a house (or car, or outside) with 90+ degree heat and no airconditioning for 2 days or more.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I dare anyone to drink a bottle of Welch's after leaving it OUTSIDE the refrigerator in a house (or car, or outside) with 90+ degree heat and no airconditioning for 2 days or more.

What'll happen?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Peter
Where does Jesus stipulate the exact alcoholic content of the "fruit of the vine?"

The argument is being made that there is nothing in scripture to indicate it was non-alcoholic, well, neither is there anything to indicate it was.

I don't know that you can tell conclusively from that PARTICULAR passage that it was alcoholic, but from other passages, it is clearly implied given that people were getting drunk from it.

1Co 11:20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

 

[Peter]

Thanks Fred, considerable point. But, do you think this puts a requirement on us to use alcoholic grape juice?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I dare anyone to drink a bottle of Welch's after leaving it OUTSIDE the refrigerator in a house (or car, or outside) with 90+ degree heat and no airconditioning for 2 days or more.

What'll happen?

Go ahead and try it!

Remember to have a barf bag and antibiotics handy!!

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue


Firstly, what evidence is there that Jesus used "low alcohol wine"?

Secondly, the biblical command to abstain from things in certain believers' presence that would likely cause those particular people to stumble or sin (be it alcohol, meat or you name it) cannot be said to apply to the commanded elements of worship; otherwise we would be biblically forced to discontinue things like the singing of the Psalms and the preaching of the Word in a particularly expository manner if someone claimed to believe those things were unbiblical (and there are preachers who claim a narrative approach to preaching is the biblical model) - and we would all hopefully agree that the notion of that approach to worship being biblical is absurd.

Thank you, MDB. That makes good sense. It now occurs to me that I learned that it was low alcohol from my fundamentalist days. How does one argue against grape juice when they make the retort that "if you're going to be strict then only use unleavened bread too."?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by Me Died Blue


Firstly, what evidence is there that Jesus used "low alcohol wine"?

Secondly, the biblical command to abstain from things in certain believers' presence that would likely cause those particular people to stumble or sin (be it alcohol, meat or you name it) cannot be said to apply to the commanded elements of worship; otherwise we would be biblically forced to discontinue things like the singing of the Psalms and the preaching of the Word in a particularly expository manner if someone claimed to believe those things were unbiblical (and there are preachers who claim a narrative approach to preaching is the biblical model) - and we would all hopefully agree that the notion of that approach to worship being biblical is absurd.

Thank you, MDB. That makes good sense. It now occurs to me that I learned that it was low alcohol from my fundamentalist days. How does one argue against grape juice when they make the retort that "if you're going to be strict then only use unleavened bread too."?

You explain to them that if they were going to be "strict" they should actually NEVER use unleavened bread, because the Bible only uses the term "loaf of bread" when it describes the Supper.

From my post here:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13990#pid197057

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
We should use what is recorded in scripture for the sacraments, either explicitly or logically deduced.

I can logically deduce using alchoholic wine (percentage is not recorded and therefore is not an element, but circumstance).

Agreed.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I can logically deduce using unleavened bread (size, color, recipe etc. not recorded, hence a circumstance).

No actually you can't. Greek has a specific word for unleavened bread, ἀÌζυμα , which is used in all the relevant passages in the OT (Gen. 19:3; Ex. 12:8, 15, 17, 18, 20; Ex 13:6 etc.) That word is specifically not used in the gospel accounts or in Paul's account. Paul uses the Greek word for what is actually a "loaf of bread" (i.e. a leavened loaf) ἀÏτος .

There are occasions where ἀÏτος is used for unleavened bread, such as Ex. 29:2 and Lev 2:4 but in each case, the adjectival form of ἀÌζυμα , ἀÌζυμος is used.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Regardless of references to leaven in a positve light in other areas of scripture do NOT negate the fact that in the institution, the bread used was unleavened. Using the RPW, a warrant from scripture is necessary to use leavened, a reference in a parable will not do.

There may be a reference that I am unaware of, but not that I can recollect.

I have provided them. It is not conclusively clear from this that leavened bread is required, but it is a severe wresting of the text and Greek to require unleavened bread. It is more likely than not that it was leavened bread from the words of Scripture themselves. And after all, that is more important than any Jewish tradition or history.

and:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
First, it is by no means settled that the Last Supper was the Passover feast. It is a highly disputed point by interpreters. It is disputed whether this was the Passover (or before) or even if during the Passover, whether it was the actual Passover meal.

Second, the language itself (as I have pointed out) points away from unleavened bread. This would be reinforced by:

1. Common bread used in a common meal in any Gentile area (i.e. as in the Corinthian church) would not be unleavened. It would be leavened.

2. Even those Gentiles who would be familiar with the OT Scriptures and ceremonies would expect to hear Paul say "unleaved bread" rather than "(leavened) loaf" in his comments on the Supper. But that is not what Paul does. He says (leavened, ordinary, common) loaf, not ἀÌÏτος ἀζυμος .

 

[Peter]

Perhaps the Supper should be celebrated only up stairs with 12 (13) people too?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
Perhaps the Supper should be celebrated only up stairs with 12 (13) people too?

I think we would all agree on one level that the elements themselves are different from the circumstances of the Supper. For example, we could say in the same reductio ad absurdum way, "perhaps only Jesus can administrate the Supper," but other Scriptures point against that. The same is true of course with the place and number.

But would we be willing to say, "it is ok to use coca-cola oin Baptism"? or dirt? or jello? Of course not. Would we be willing to use steak instead of bread? If not, why not? If there is some delineation of elements, where is the stopping point?

I would think that since the description of the bread is actually more specific than that of the drink ("fruit of the vine") it would actually be a greater problem to use unleavened bread than wine. (I am personally opposed to unleavened bread because the text points against it, and because of the sanctimonious attitude of almost every unleavened advocate I have met).

 

[CalsFarmer]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I dare anyone to drink a bottle of Welch's after leaving it OUTSIDE the refrigerator in a house (or car, or outside) with 90+ degree heat and no airconditioning for 2 days or more.

What'll happen?

Do you know what Mad Dog 20-20 is?

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Peter
Perhaps the Supper should be celebrated only up stairs with 12 (13) people too?

I think we would all agree on one level that the elements themselves are different from the circumstances of the Supper. For example, we could say in the same reductio ad absurdum way, "perhaps only Jesus can administrate the Supper," but other Scriptures point against that. The same is true of course with the place and number.

But would we be willing to say, "it is ok to use coca-cola oin Baptism"? or dirt? or jello? Of course not. Would we be willing to use steak instead of bread? If not, why not? If there is some delineation of elements, where is the stopping point?

I would think that since the description of the bread is actually more specific than that of the drink ("fruit of the vine") it would actually be a greater problem to use unleavened bread than wine. (I am personally opposed to unleavened bread because the text points against it, and because of the sanctimonious attitude of almost every unleavened advocate I have met).

 

[fredtgreco]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The fruit of the vine can be involved in the Supper without having to be modern-day alcoholic wine, I think. I see no problem in using Grape Juice or non-alcoholic Wine.

 

[Robin]

Wine is not juice; juice is not wine.

Robin

Btw, David....in our URC, only the center cups are juice, in deference to the struggles of the weak.



[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Robin]

 

[Mike]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The fruit of the vine can be involved in the Supper without having to be modern-day alcoholic wine, I think. I see no problem in using Grape Juice or non-alcoholic Wine.

What do we take "fruit of the vine" to mean? Shall we serve a watermelon?

Obviously, we understand the phrase as an idiom, referring to something different than the simple meaning of the parts of the phrase. It seems like common usage and Biblical context would lead us to believe what the idiom refers to is wine. Is that not the case?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Mike

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The fruit of the vine can be involved in the Supper without having to be modern-day alcoholic wine, I think. I see no problem in using Grape Juice or non-alcoholic Wine.

What do we take "fruit of the vine" to mean? Shall we serve a watermelon?

Obviously, we understand the phrase as an idiom, referring to something different than the simple meaning of the parts of the phrase. It seems like common usage and Biblical context would lead us to believe what the idiom refers to is wine. Is that not the case?

Is alcohol a necessary element of wine, or is it the juice of grapes that matters?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Mike

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The fruit of the vine can be involved in the Supper without having to be modern-day alcoholic wine, I think. I see no problem in using Grape Juice or non-alcoholic Wine.

What do we take "fruit of the vine" to mean? Shall we serve a watermelon?

Obviously, we understand the phrase as an idiom, referring to something different than the simple meaning of the parts of the phrase. It seems like common usage and Biblical context would lead us to believe what the idiom refers to is wine. Is that not the case?

Is alcohol a necessary element of wine, or is it the juice of grapes that matters?

This is a good question. Isn't there a difference between wine without alcohol (which has been removed) and juice?

Furthermore, would wine that is made from some fruit other than grapes be allowable?

[Edited on 12/27/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think what is required by the RPW is the juice of grapes, the fruit of the vine. Alcohol seems more like a side-issue or a non-important factor as a whole.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I think what is required by the RPW is the juice of grapes, the fruit of the vine. Alcohol seems more like a side-issue or a non-important factor as a whole.

I don't think that alcohol is non-important, although I don't think juice is the equivalent of steak for the Supper (i.e. the completely wrong element). Besides the exegetical weight - which lands on actual "wine" rather than just "fruit of the vine" (Esp. considering context), there is a subjective matter. I believe that wine - with its taste of bitterness as well as enjoyment, better represents the atonement.

 

[Peter]

Thomas Vincent: "What kind of wine is to be used in the Lord's Supper? Any kind of wine may be used in the L.S. We read that Christ drank the fruit of the vine with his disciples but what sort of wine is not said; yet it seemth most suitable and most lively to represent the blood of Christ, when wine is of red color, such as tent or claret wine.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Robin
Wine is not juice; juice is not wine.

Robin

Btw, David....in our URC, only the center cups are juice, in deference to the struggles of the weak.



[Edited on 12-27-2005 by Robin]

Robin,
We do the same ala Christ Reformed!

Ought we allow for the weaker brethren at the expense of unity? Is there even a lack of unity in accomodation? Wouldn't blending wine with 'pre-wine' be more in conformity to the cup (singular) towards unity in the body? What if some wanted sweet wine, others dry? That seems extreme. 'just thinking out loud.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

winebibbers.

 

[Arch2k]

Can we say that in all likelyhood (i.e. from all biblical evidense), alchoholic wine was used? It seems that if people were getting drunk from it, that we can safely say yes.

Any thoughts?

 

[Peter]

Likely, however irrelevent in my opinion. I don't think we have to replicate all the circumstances of what a 1st century palestinian (or greek) celebration of the Lord's Supper might have been like. Personally, I think the color (red) of the element is more important than the flavor or alchohol content

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Peter
Likely, however irrelevent in my opinion. I don't think we have to replicate all the circumstances of what a 1st century palestinian (or greek) celebration of the Lord's Supper might have been like. Personally, I think the color (red) of the element is more important than the flavor or alchohol content

I can see where you are coming from Peter, but at least for me, I would prefer to stick as closely as possible to the ordinances. I realize that some would take this to the nth degree by including all "circumstances" of worship, but as of now, I am not convinced that the alchoholic nature of the cup is not part of the "elemental" nature of the ordinance.

I do enjoy this conversation though, and hope it continues.