Communion: does it matter if ......

[Forever Settled]

It’s evident you put leaven in.....a direct violation of

Exodus 34:25
Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

You are not responible If there is naturally occuring yeast on the grape...YOU ARE responsible when you add leaven.

You won’t find one commerical wine maker who relies on the natural yeast to produce their wine ! They add it.....just like You when you violate God’s command in the above verse .

 

[Forever Settled]

In prepration for the passover the people had to clean ALL leaven from their home for Seven days Before observance of the passover

Exodus 12:19
19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.

I don’t see an exemption for the Wine.....do You ?

 

[Jerome]

yeast/leaven....is already present on the skin of the grape...the process of fermentation whereby the formation of alcohol kills the yeast cells and the resulting wine is leaven/yeast FREE....Let me repeat, wine is LEAVEN FREE. Please prove to me that it is not.

Fermented wine still contains tiny fragments of dead yeast, even after filtering. Modern microfiltration methods leave some dead yeast particles in the wine; much more remained in Bible times, when such methods were not available.

 

[unprofitable]

Forever settled,
Have you ever heard of people making their own wine even even as the children of Israel in the wilderness? The end product is leaven free. Then if the wine is leaven free, how can there be leaven found in the house? No exception is needed when no leaven if found. Were they supposed to throw out the grapes? I am absolutely positive our wine is older than 7 days. This actually is talking about to people to examine themselves to see if sin be found in themselves. The verse you quoted makes it evident that it was meaning that there be no leaven AT THE TIME of the offering. This is true of alcoholic wine, but not grape juice as made by, as Alcott referred, Tom Welch. The Lord did not prohibit the children of Israel from using leaven in the daily food preparation, but only to make sure none was present at THE TIME of the offering which included the 7 days prior as the preparation/examination time.

Jerome,
Whatever fragments found are no longer able to cause the wine to be puffed or ferment. In contrast, your bread that has been baked results in a product that is still puffed up. In both my examples I have shown the end result is a leaven free/sin free, not puffed up, but an acceptable offering. By the way, how about your honey bun?

 

[Forever Settled]

Unprofitable........ what you are not accepting is the word wine is NEVER used in conjunction with the Lord’s supper.

So you are in violation of not only Exodus but you are in violation of using the wrong substance to begin with .

 

[Forever Settled]

Unprofitable :

Wine cannot be the fruit of the vine; it is not pure. How can something that is not pure represent the blood of Jesus which was the purest blood? The "wine" promoters then say that the leaven (yeast) is in the grape juice naturally because it exists on the grape skins themselves and therefore nothing is added to the grape juice. But this is worse than admitting that the leaven had to be added. If leaven (yeast) represents sin, which it most surely does, and Jesus said that the grape juice of the Passover represents His blood, then by their own admission, the churches who use alcoholic, intoxicating wine in conjunction with the Lord's Supper or communion, are denying the very deity of Jesus Christ Himself.


If the yeast is present naturally, then that is saying that His blood contained the natural taint of sin, that the blood flowing through His veins was tainted by that natural sin and therefore, denying that He had no human father, and that lie was conceived by the Holy Ghost as the Scriptures say (Matthew 1:20). But, my friend, His blood was not just blood of another spotless lamb; His blood was precious blood, perfect blood, sinless blood, atoning blood. As He held up the cup at the last supper and said, "this is my blood of the New Testament", He was not holding up wine which contained the leaven of sin, but rather the purest grape juice with no imperfections, no leaven, no yeast, no taint of natural sin.

 

[unprofitable]

Neither is the word grape juice used in conjunction with the Lord's supper. It is called the fruit of the vine and therefore we must lay line upon line, line upon line. We contend that it lines up perfectly with the events in the marriage. Please reread my comments on the marriage feast, Both the marriage supper and the Lord's supper are the teaching of the new covenant. Mary saying they want wine, the examples that prove both she and the governor of the feast were referring to wine and how Christ directly related it to the institution of the Lord's supper and the new covenant. The wine of the marriage and the fruit of the vine of the new testament/covenant cannot be separated. Christ came teaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, the new covenant. This can be the only conclusion we can draw to what Christ was referring when he said, "my time is not yet come" Otherwise the statement becomes irrelevant. Why would he use wine in one and not in the other. The focus of both is the new covenant. Give your interpretation of the event and how it had relevance to what Christ was saying, how the two relate.

I must ask, do you deny that Christ made wine at the wedding? It is clear that Christ drank wine himself when he said in Matt 11:19, "The son of man came eating and drinking, and they say behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber." They justified persecuting Christ by using Deu, 21:20, "And they shall say unto the elders of the city, this our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, He is a glutton and a drunkard." It seems that quite often the defenses both of you use in trying to deny wine at the Lord's supper are really to try to advocate that God's people are not to drink wine, period. If Christ drank and admitted that he drank, how can we say it is unscriptural. The Pharisees condemned Christ for drinking. Do you? Are you judging as the Pharisees? Do you believe it is a sin to drink? I am not talking about getting drunk? Or is it just when the Lord's supper is observed that you have a problem with wine??

Tell me what is your understanding of the drink offering that clearly is called a wine offering, and Christ in showing he would be their drink offering in the fulfilling of the old testament. Was the wine offering in the old testament truly a wine offering or is it a mis-translation? This is clearly an example of a wine being used as an offering. Was it not supposed to represent Christ since everything in the old covenant pointed toward the new covenant in types and shadows? How do we get past this contradiction?. Why would Christ allow wine with one offering and not the other? Are you saying if we make our own wine naturally without adding yeast/leaven then it will be OK to use for the Lord's supper?. That seems to be the conclusion I get from what you are saying. And if prohibited, on what grounds since we would no longer be using a commercial winemaker. .Or are you just trying to say that it is sinful to have a drink of wine.

 

[Forever Settled]

"Lo, this have I found," saith the wise man (Ecc. 7:29), "that God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions."

The things created for food, and which are to be received with thanksgiving, are those which are in their natural and wholesome condition, and which nourish and strengthen the body, and not those which are in the process of decomposition.

Rotten fruits of all kinds are rejected as innutritious and unwholesome. So also are decaying meats. It is a strange perversion of all science, as well as of common sense, to rank among the good creatures of God alcohol, which is found in no living plant, but which is to be found only after the death of the fruit, and is the product of decomposition




Now, what if there is another kind of wine spoken of in the Word of God that cannot possibly be intoxicating, where fermentation and the consequent presence of alcohol are out of the question—what then?

Why, is it not reasonable and consistent, the demand alike of common sense and common conscience, to regard this as the wine commended in Scripture as a blessing making glad the heart of man?

To the law and the testimony: God, threatening Moab with desolation, said, Isaiah 16:10, 'In the vineyard there shall be no singing and shouting, the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses. I have made their vintage—shouting to cease.'

And again, Jer. 48:33, 'I have caused wine to fail from the winepresses; none shall tread with shouting.' Again, Gedaliah, made governor by the King of Babylon over the cities of Judah, thus commanded the Jews, Jer. 40:10, ‘Gather ye wine, and summer fruits, and oil, and put them in your vessels.' And the record is, "They gathered wine and summer fruits very much.' the Bible also speaks of ‘presses bursting with new wine,' of ‘wine found in the cluster'; and it says of this wine, and of this only, and in this very connection, ‘a blessing is in it.'

Here is frequent reference to the pure, unfermented juice of the grape as just trodden out of the presses, just gathered from the vintage, and even as found in the cluster. And here this grape-juice is repeatedly, and by the Jews themselves, in their own Scriptures, called wine, both yayin and tirosh.

"There is no exploit of logic that can make any sane man believe this to be the very same wine elsewhere called 'a mocker.'

The deceitful, subtle, serpent element has, not yet entered it; for alcohol requires time and a process for its formation.

It is the simple, unfermented juice of the grape, just as cider right out of the press is the simple, unfermented juice of the apple.

And as such, God says, a blessing is in it. Here, then, is the scriptural distinction between wine and wine.

Satan has tried to and has been mostly sucessful in convincing man that wine is Always Alcoholic in Scripture Don’t fall for the LIE.

Portions are from Bible Wines by William Patton.

 

[unprofitable]

I see neither of you have answered ANY of my questions that are quite simple and straight.forward.

So I must conclude by what you have written and most by someone else that-

1- You have read none of the basis for my explanation of the Lords' supper or you have and cannot understand.

2- Christ did not make wine at the marriage feast.

3- Christ lied when he said "the son of man came both eating and drinking, The first part of the verse proves that he did indeed drink because he compares himself to John the Baptist in Mt 11:18 "For John came NEITHER eating nor drinking and they say he hath a devil. 19) The son of man came eating and DRINKING and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a wine bibber." It can't be water they were accusing him of abusing because it was not against the law to drink water. What was he drinking that was against the law that would give the Pharisees a supposed reason to cite scripture against him and to put him to death ? I have given you the answer in Deu 21:18-22 yet you still cannot see or refuse to admit how they directly tie into Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees.

4- Hosea 4:11 says,"wine (yayin) and new wine (tirosh) take away the heart." Grape juice has never done that to me. The truth of the word of God makes my heart to rejoice and it is without literal wine. Drinking grape juice.does not. Neither do coke nor potato chip, gator aide, or cake. People try to justify such ungodly offerings but condemn that which is scriptural

5- Wine, as I said previously, is leaven-free, therefore no violation of the law. You said that if I added leaven it was a sin. Jerome said all commercial wines have yeast added. I have to conclude according to your line of reasoning, that if I naturally let the wine ferment by naturally occurring yeast then that would be ok because as you said grapes have yeast naturally on them and I have not added any yeast then I have not violated the law. Boy, that sure was a stretch of the imagination. What bible verse do you use to justify that one.
.
6- Strong wine, while having a literal application, also is a spiritual teaching of the misuse of the Law in a sinful manner to persecute the righteous. It is how the Pharisee became inflamed (angry) by strong wine (perversion of the Law) as they did when they persecuted Christ because he sometimes drank wine.(Mt 11:18-19) You don't have to drink anything alcoholic to be guilty of being drunk with strong wine. The Pharisees were drunk with the blood of the prophets and that by strong wine or the misuse of the Law to justify killing them, just as they did Christ.

7- Please answer at least one of my questions. If not, then there is no use in my continuing to ask them.

 

[unprofitable]

By the way, you were the one that said it was no sin if the yeast occurred naturally (give me a verse.) You admitted that yeast/leaven represented sin. Your grape juice with leaven must represents sins. My wine has none. Yours does. Another contradiction.

 

[Jerome]

If you think my explaination is contrived then I ask you, do you think the Lord will accept your honey bun?

Jerome,...By the way, how about your honey bun?

My honey bun?
Huh? When did I ever say any thing about honey?
Or a bun?
What is a 'honey bun' anyway?

Weird.

Jerome said all commercial wines have yeast added.

No I did not.

Done.

 

[unprofitable]

Jerome said, How contrived!

Baking kills the yeast cells in raised bread too. Is that bread then 'unleavened'?

Your attempt to portray a bread that that been baked and no longer has leaven in it as acceptable at the Lord's supper. This same reasoning is why people have used potato chips and cake, i.e. the honey bun question.

A honey bun is a pastry available across much of the southeast. Maybe not in your area. Insert whatever baked pastry you like.

The comment about commercial winemakers was by Forever Settled. My apology.

 

[Forever Settled]

I see neither of you have answered ANY of my questions that are quite simple and straight.forward.

So I must conclude by what you have written and most by someone else that-

1- You have read none of the basis for my explanation of the Lords' supper or you have and cannot understand.

Yes I understand.

2- Christ did not make wine at the marriage feast.

Well at least you have that right.

3- Christ lied when he said "the son of man came both eating and drinking, The first part of the verse proves that he did indeed drink because he compares himself to John the Baptist in Mt 11:18 "For John came NEITHER eating nor drinking and they say he hath a devil.

John was a nazarite hence he avoided grapes.

The son of man came eating and DRINKING and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a wine bibber." It can't be water they were accusing him of abusing because it was not against the law to drink water. What was he drinking that was against the law that would give the Pharisees a supposed reason to cite scripture against him and to put him to death ? I have given you the answer in Deu 21:18-22 yet you still cannot see or refuse to admit how they directly tie into Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees.

The pharisees also accused him of being demon possessed...........you probably believe that accusation as well ?

4- Hosea

4:11 says,"wine (yayin) and new wine (tirosh) take away the heart." Grape juice has never done that to me.

The people had forsaken God in the context and were using wine the wine was taking their heart AWAY from God.......you really should stop promoting wine it causes people to Forsake God just as this passage teaches .

Wine, as I said previously, is leaven-free, therefore no violation of the law. You said that if I added leaven it was a sin. Jerome said all commercial wines have yeast added. I have to conclude according to your line of reasoning, that if I naturally let the wine ferment by naturally occurring yeast then that would be ok because as you said grapes have yeast naturally on them and I have not added any yeast then I have not violated the law. Boy, that sure was a stretch of the imagination. What bible verse do you use to justify that one.
.

The naturally occuring yeast on the outside and the pure juice on the inside is a beautiful picture of Jesus.
He was here in the flesh he was tempted in the flesh... his flesh was subject to thesinful desires yet without sin on the OUTSIDE the flesh.....yet on the inside the heart....he was PURE without sin ......just like the pure fruit or juice of the vine.

Strong wine, while having a literal application, also is a spiritual teaching of the misuse of the Law in a sinful manner to persecute the righteous. It is how the Pharisee became inflamed (angry) by strong wine (perversion of the Law) as they did when they persecuted Christ because he sometimes drank wine.(Mt 11:18-19) You don't have to drink anything alcoholic to be guilty of being drunk with strong wine. The Pharisees were drunk with the blood of the prophets and that by strong wine or the misuse of the Law to justify killing them, just as they did Christ.

This is so convoluted I don’t know what to make of it.

 

[Forever Settled]

Forever settled,
Have you ever heard of people making their own wine even even as the children of Israel in the wilderness?

Would you cite a verse where they made alcoholic wine in the wilderness ?

the end product is leaven free.

No...... the leaven may be dead but it is still in the product.

Then if the wine is leaven free, how can there be leaven found in thegfg house?
No exception is needed when no leaven if found. Were they supposed to throw out the grapes? I am absolutely positive our wine is older than 7 days.

Leaven although dead would still be present.

This actually is talking about to people to examine themselves to see if sin be found in themselves.

Lol, you think ?

Here read the verse again :

Exodus 34:25
25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

NO leaven was to be added to the Blood sacfrice....Christ said the cup represented his blood.

How dare you add leaven to his blood...in violation of this verse.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Fermented wine still contains tiny fragments of dead yeast, even after filtering. Modern microfiltration methods leave some dead yeast particles in the wine; much more remained in Bible times, when such methods were not available.

Wine must reach a certain alcoholic proportion (can't remember if I was told 9% or 11%) before the yeast is killed. All wine with greater alcohol content has been fortified with distilled spirits of some kind, often brandy. If the fermentation is stopped early, or if the grapes' sugar content is sufficiently low, live yeast can likely survive, at least for a while.

It appears that godly Christians can disagree on the necessity of wine being used at Communion. To me, the passages about the Last Supper are both prescriptive ("This do, in remembrance of Me.") and descriptive - the details of the substances being served.

 

[unprofitable]

Forever Settled,

Your saying you understand is certainly your opinion but not backed up by the scriptures.

Christ DID make wine at the wedding as witnessed in the fact that there was a significant difference in taste and quality between the first drink and the second. Since both Christ and John Baptist came preaching the kingdom of God, therefore a new covenant, then the two drinks plainly represent the old and new covenant and the glory of those covenants. Paul expounds in 2 Cor 3:9, "For is the ministration of condemnation be glory (old covenant, old wine), much more doth the ministration of righteousness (new covenant, new wine) EXCEED in glory. John 2:4 says"...thou hast saved the good (best) wine (new covenant) (ministration of righteousness) until now. This is proof that the teaching of the marriage feast must be taught in the context of the bringing in of a "better hope" (Heb 7:19, 2 Cor 3:12) as a new covenant. 2 Cor 3: says "For even that which was glorious has no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11) for if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth (new covenant, the best wine until now).Truly new wine must be put into new bottles.

 

[unprofitable]

continued--

Several points must be brought into focus.

1- Biblicist said there are no words in the scriptures for unfermented wine. When the word wine is used it means wine.

2- Both Gill and Spurgeon agree that the wine of the Lord's supper was a fermented wine. Fermentation naturally begins within 6 to 12 hours after the grape is crushed because if the yeast on the skin of the grapes. This would seem to create a problem in bringing grape juice as a drink offering in that alcohol also is formed in such a short period of time. Given such a short period of time, it would seem that everyone would be rushing to the temple at the same time to make sure that they gave their drink offering before it turned into alcohol. Since the priests received of the offering, would that not have turned into wine by the time they were ready to use it?

3- Wine was and still is at the heart of the Jewish economy. The Jews still see wine (not grape juice) as a symbol of being freed from the bondage of Egypt,

4- Biblicist also pointed out that in their observance of passover, they still use a MINIMUM of 4 glasses of wine (not grape juice),

5- They did not/do not deem it necessary to remove grape wine from the house in the observance of the feast of unleaven bread. Grape wine was not/is not considered leaven. Only wines/drinks made of 5 grains were prohibited: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. There are extensive lists of what alcoholic drinks are acceptable for their passover. Why would this be necessary if they could only drink grape juice..

6- Given the above, it is evident Christ would not have been prohibited from making new wine to represent the new covenant. Again, new wine into new bottles.

Please provide me with any historical or present information that is contrary.
continued

 

[unprofitable]

Your answered that in John being a nazarite, he avoided wine. You completely try to avoid the question in that Christ himself said he came eating (their charge him being a glutton) AND DRINKING and a winebibber/drunkard. Deuteronomy 21:20 is EXACTLY what they are using as their basis for bringing a charge, otherwise they have no basis for their their claim. He contrasts that John did not drink wine but he did. He did not say John did not drink wine and neither did I. In case you missed the point, he is showing that the Jews judged according to the outward appearance by their interpretation of the old covenant and no matter what either He or John the Baptist did, it would not be acceptable to them. They, as the sons of Abraham were charged to judge righteous judgment and do justice (Gen 18:19) but as the seed of Abraham, they had perverted the word of God and in doing so had become false witnesses and liars against the truth.

continued-

 

[Forever Settled]

Unprofitable.....the subject of the thread is communion......not a wedding lets focus on communion

Sure he came drinking nonalcoholic wine. Something John was forbidden to do.

Is the charge of gluttony and demon possession by the same people leveled against Jesus also believed by you ?

Are you claiming No one drank grape juice in the Scripture ?

Are you claiming ALL wine in scripture is alcoholic ?

 

[unprofitable]

Your accusation that I believe that Christ had a devil is a very strong unjustified charge. This is the same as calling me a fool.
The scriptures say in Mt 5:22 ..."whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." I have seen this before. People resort to personal attacks when their arguments start to fall apart. I have prayed that the Lord forgive you for your apparent ignorance of Mt 5:22.