Lord's Supper; Wine or Grape Juice?

John 2:1. On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2. and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.
3. When the Welch’s grape juice ran out, the mother of Jesus *said to Him, "They have no Welch’s grape juice."
4. And Jesus *said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come."
5. His mother *said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."
6. Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.
7. Jesus *said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." So they filled them up to the brim.
8. And He *said to them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it to him.
9. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become Welch’s grape juice, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter *called the bridegroom,
10. and *said to him, "Every man serves the good Welch’s grape juice first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer Welch’s grape juice; but you have kept the good Welch’s grape juice until now."
11. This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.
(Saint Mary’s of Bethlehem Psychiatric Hospital Patients’ Version, 2005)

John 2:1. On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2. and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.
3. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus *said to Him, "They have no wine."
4. And Jesus *said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come."
5. His mother *said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."
6. Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.
7. Jesus *said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." So they filled them up to the brim.
8. And He *said to them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it to him.
9. 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,
10. and *said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
11. This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.
(NASB, 1995)

 

You cannot put new wine into an old wineskin

Why not?

Because it ferments and a wineskin which is a sheeps gut has one streach in it, put it in twice and it will split open.

Lazuras was in the tomb decayed after three days, that is what the climate does there, it might be nice to think that they were able to preserve grape juice out of season without alcohol, yet bluntly it is not possible, remember these people had considerably less disposable income than you or I and there was no "special" wine that people might have you believe.

Near here there is a winery that makes Kosher wine for the Jewish international community, all Jewish Kosher wine is made as it was in the time of Christ, except that vats are used rather than a sheep gut, it was alcoholic then and still is today.

The problem is Alcohol is the most abused drug in the world and causes many problems. Some Christians are so keen to preach against it that they wish to make the Bible say that Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine. Misguided, and unfortunatley bearing a false testimony despite good intentions.

It is a subject that I advise people study openly without looking for verses to "prove" their point, the real answer is what it is and Christians have to accept that Jesus did drink alcohol albeit as a preservative, not as a drug.

 

Fomenting the fermenting--

Given the facts of chemistry, meteorology and any other "science" which may be applicable, grapes ferment--even on the vine. Man speeds up this "natural" process in his various "vino" scenarios.

The real question is which is "cleaner" in terms of a bacterial process(leaven if you will)? The answer seems obvious. Is there any such thing as pure grape juice? If there is one molecule of alcohol in it, is it unclean?

"One must be circumsized to be saved"

Now, shall we argue the presence or non-presence--of the salt in the loaf?

We can tackle trans- and con-substantiation too--if someone would so desire.

What are the words that transform bread into flesh and the wine into blood?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Actually the burden of proof rests with those who claim Jesus did not make or partake in fermented wine when the text indicates otherwise. The evidence is that he did, thus it is up to those who say he did not to show why.

Based on the Jewish culture of his day and other cultural issues, it would have been totally against culture for the "wine" mentioned in the Bible to have been merely "grape juice."

Although Jesus was not a drunkard or glutton, the text does say he came eating and drinking, which indicates he did partake. He simply did not overindulge (which is where sin enters the picture).

I simply think this is another example of westernized Christians in the last 100 years trying to construct a Jesus who matches their own ideologies.

Fortunately what you "believe" is not the determining factor. Again, I will ask for a biblical and reasonable proof that Jesus did not make or drink fermented wine.

By the way, this has nothing to do with my own stance (which I have not defined). I am simply asking for a defense of your statements.

 

Posted by All about grace: By the way, this has nothing to do with my own stance (which I have not defined). I am simply asking for a defense of your statements.

I cannot argue the point with you. I was really relying on teachings I had received rather than truly studying it out. I have checked it out and after preliminary study I cannot disprove that Jesus created alcoholic wine. I will study this indepth and get back to this thread or start a new one.

 

We use off brand grape juice.

 

My church uses grape juice, like pretty much every other baptist church in my area.

I wish we could use real wine, but it would cause too much of a fuss.

 

I Timothy 5:

21 I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some [men] they follow after.

25 Likewise also the good works [of some] are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.

I included the rest to prevent taking anything out of context. But, my question is: they didn't have medicine like we do today, so didn't they drink wine to help kill the bad bacteria in the stomach? That was always my understanding (I'm always open for correction if I misunderstood the passage). I'm not trying to debate....just trying to learn.

Also, I realize that many Christians-my own pastor and copastor, included- do not believe in the "alcoholism is hereditary" argument that the medical professionals have been testifying for the past couple decades. I believe it to the point that we can inherit how our bodies are effected by alcohol-that some people who drink don't know when to stop because their bodies handle it differently. I don't drink, but my parents have occasionally opened wine for New Years (I've only seen this twice in my life) and drink a sip. The rest is left in the fridge for a couple years (they are packrats...something I KNOW I inherited ). My husband's father, OTOH, is an alcoholic. I've never seen him drink, but he said that once he got started drinking he'd keep going until he was passed out, and even than, someone would have to physically remove the drink from his hand before he was through drinking. I have to give my FIL credit for NOT drinking all these years I've known him, since he told me he can't go a day without thinking about it. My husband has never tried alcohol, but my FIL believes if he did start, that he would be an alcoholic, as well.

Of course, that initial drink is NOT inherited. No one is an alcoholic if he has never taken a drink of alcohol.

I don't have a weight problem, but I have high cholesterol. I was considering getting some red wine to help control this until my FIL told me that he was an alcoholic. It's not worth trying a treatment they haven't totally proven at the risk of starting a problem my husband could do without (and have done without his entire life).


Since Jesus was Jewish, I'm wondering if their bodies reacted toward alcohol differently than others? That they could sip wine without getting sick or drunk over it?

One more thing...my husband once explained to me that the wine back then was not as alcoholic as it is today. Back then, they used it medicinally to treat ailments, but that today's alcohol is meant for "pleasure" (if you could call throwing up on someone's shoes and passing out on your front lawn "pleasurable").

Any comments?...corrections?

 

Can you provide a reasonable and biblical defense for this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]Sure can----the Passover meal was all about unleaven--- </font>[/QUOTE]Which is why alcohol is included in the Passover meal, because it is unleavened.

 

To nobodyspecial --

In most European societies, wine is often used as an "after dinner drink" in much the same way as we might use coffee or iced tea. Few, if any, people in these societies--devout Christians included--see nothing wrong with that. The Bible nowhere condemns the mere use of wine. It is, rather, the abuse or over-use of wine that God's Word condemns.

There is a greater percentage of alcohol in the recommended dosage of Vick's NyQuil cold medicine than there is in the typical communion cup of wine. To the best of my recollection, so far I have yet to hear anyone condemning Christians for taking NyQuil for a cold.

Personally, it makes no difference to me whether or not a church perfers wine or grape juice for the Lord's Supper. The contents of the cup (whichever it may be) are a simply a representation of the Blood of Christ shed for our sins--it is a PICTURE.

As you can already see from the previous postings, our Baptist Board friends can disagree over whether or not it should be wine or grape juice. IMO the dispute is no more significant than to dispute whether a color photo is a true and better representation of a person than a black-and-white photo. Both are simply PICTURES.

No doubt I'll likely be taken to task by some of our Baptist Board friends for what I've just posted by someone who take a strong position on either wine or grape juice. If so, fine with me. That is your right just as much as it's my right to hold to the opinion that either one is suitable.

 

I've heard of Niquil referred to as "Christian booze" because nobody seems to condemn Nyquil. I have personaly used it (with my doctor's approval at the time) to help me sleep. At this point, I'm taking medication that would cause problems if I took it today. But back then Nyquil had 14% alcohol, I believe. Today they've reduced it to 10% (I just looked).

In fact, when I was in Bible college, 4 of us shared a room and we all got the flu. The dorm parent gave us all Nyquil but told us we couldn't have anything to eat or drink. I believe that made us worse, but she was the type who insisted she knew it all. [grin]

I'm not going to disagree with anyone in here. I'll be the first to admit I''ve still got a lot to learn.

 

Can you provide a reasonable and biblical defense for this statement? </font>[/QUOTE]Sure can----the Passover meal was all about unleaven--- </font>[/QUOTE]Here's one that proves you are wrong, that our Lord did indeed drink wine. Luke 7:33-34 "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" </font>[/QUOTE]Wow - did you rip that out of context! Read the chapter and you'll see that our Lord did NOT drink wine - neither was he a glutton. Since gluttony is without argument a sin, and Jesus did NOT sin. </font>[/QUOTE]Just read the chapter again, and no, I did not take that out of context. You are correct that Jesus did not sin. That is why alcohol in itself is not a sin, and yes, Jesus did drink wine based on these verses.

Why would Jesus say that he came eating and drinking and He was accused of being a glutton and a drunk if He didn't drink wine? Would He be called a drunk if He drank water? If I'm holding a bottle of water, I CAN'T be accused of being a drunk, but if I am holding a Bud Light, I could be accused. You are just trying to justify alcohol as sinful, instead of the act of drunkeness as sinful. Wine and other alcohol is mentioned over 200 times in the Bible, and only the misuse of it is a sin, the same with overdoing it on food, sex, etc.

How do you justify the other verses in the Bible that prove you wrong about alcohol?