Wine vs. Grapejuice @ Communion

[StefanM]

Oh, you are back!

Welcome back SFIC and Linda64.

 

[Joe]

Joe,

You threw them in the "bowels"?? Man that's nasty!! I bet not many come over for a drink, huh? LOL Just kidding, Brother!! No wonder they smelled. LOL Maybe it's not the tupperware that makes the "prrrrfffffffpppp" when you opened the lid!! Man you set yourself up on this one. Please forgive me, my dear Brother!!

Willis

Eeeeww!!!

That's funny :applause: :laugh:

I had to read your words twice before I understood what you were referring to!

 

[EdSutton]

Ed you have the power to never open this thread again, use that power if you so wish. I am not trying to debate whether wine use is wrong, we know EVERONE'S opinion on that.

Then I have to agree here with standingfirminChrist who asks, 'why post this in a "debate" thread'? if (A.) you already "know EVERYONE'S opinion on that" as to "whether wine use is wrong", and (B.) you are not trying to debate it. Incidentally, what is my opinion on this subject, since you claim to know it? Some of those less astute than you, mught be interested in finding out. And since some of "the usual suspects" were already starting to congregate "right on cue" by the time I opened and posted in this thread (Post #7) I did not offer my opinion to be overlooked in the midst of the same old arguments, from the same posters, yet once again.

I am looking at when the change happened in America and how other countries do Communion.

Could be, but this is certainly not clearly stated in the OP, and unlike some, I make no claim as to being able to read minds.

I also detest the pdf format, and so do not read anything in pdf, unless I deem it absolutely necessary. This did not qualify.

Ed

 

[JerryL]

I posted it in the General thread because it doesn't belong in the Theology thread. All threads in the general thread don't have to be about debate. The heading at the top says "General Baptist Discussions"

I just thought this was an interesting read on how we in America came to start using grape juice at Communion

Post #12 Is that where you are? If so, what is predominate in the Churches over there? I'm trying to figure out if it is an American thing. I know it changed to grapejuice here in America in the 1800's. Is the same true in other countrys? According to the article, the pilgrims left England with more wine than water, does that reflect how England still does communion today? Maybe David can give an idea when he reads this thread.

Seems I did address it. If you don't have any insight or haven't read the article, why do you keep posting here if this thread bothers you so much? It's been going smooth so far. Some questions were answered and everyone is acting good, why do you try to get things stirred up?

 

[Joe]

I'm not interested in a debate on this subject, it has been hashed and rehashed several times. I found this article while studying the subject because I have never felt compfortable using grape juice at Communion. My Church uses it and I guess I will continue, but I still get the willys using it ever since I heard a local Pastor explain it a couple of years ago. I just thought this was an interesting read on how we in America came to start using grape juice at Communion. It is a long read, but worth the time when you can spare some. One interesting note that caught my eye was the first Communion with Jesus. The wine they used had to be close to 6 months old. Before we start some "shoot from the hip responses" read the article first please.
"Our Lord in
instituting the Supper after Passover, availed himself of the
expression invariably employed by his countrymen in
speaking of the wine of the Passover. On other occasions,
when employing the language of common life, he calls wine
by its ordinary name.7
Moreover, the time of the Passover was in the spring. It was held during the
first month of the Jewish calendar which is in the March/April timeframe today.
The grape harvest was in August or September. This would put Passover just about
six months away from the grape harvest season. One must remember that
pasteurization of grape juice, to keep it from turning into wine, was not invented
until 1869. As soon as grapes are crushed they begin fermenting. It is as though
grapes want to turn to wine. God made grapes so that they naturally contain the
necessary ingredients, sugar and yeast, to turn to wine. Grapes will reach almost
full alcoholic content in only five to ten days. In the first century, the Hebrews did
not have a way to store grape juice or inhibit it from fermenting until Passover."

Here is the article.
Why Did We Change the
Grape Juice to Wine
in the Communion Cup?
A Biblical View of Wine and the Cultural Influences that
Shaped the Church to Change Its Practice of Communion
by
Marion Lovett
http://www.christreformedchurch.org/PDF/WineinCommunion.pdf

I underlined a sentence in your Op above. It's pretty clear what we are debating, and the focus is not whether alcohol is sinful. Thanks for the direction Jerry, maybe that is why this thread is going so smoothly
An alcohol thread where people are actually joking around.

Good job everyone

 

[JerryL]

I underlined a sentence in your Op above. It's pretty clear what we are debating, and the focus is not whether alcohol is sinful. Thanks for the direction Jerry, maybe that is why this thread is going so smoothly
An alcohol thread where people are actually joking around.

Good job everyone

Thanks Joe. My honest question of whether it was wrong to use grapejuice is why I ended up searching and finding that article. A couple of people here have eased my concern of using grapejuice in communion, answering that, "todays grapejuice is pasterized and free of impurities", like Christ. The article furthered my inqisitiveness of when this change came about in America and if other countries do as we do. I never intended a debate on the rights and wrongs of it. I heard a pastor preach a sermon along the same lines as the article about 2 years ago and ever since then, as I said in my first post, I got the "willys" everytime I did communion with juice. I think I can do Communion with juice and be at ease now.

 

[Beth]

Conscience

I'm not interested in a debate on this subject, it has been hashed and rehashed several times. I found this article while studying the subject because I have never felt compfortable using grape juice at Communion. My Church uses it and I guess I will continue, but I still get the willys using it ever since I heard a local Pastor explain it a couple of years ago. I just thought this was an interesting read on how we in America came to start using grape juice at Communion. It is a long read, but worth the time when you can spare some. One interesting note that caught my eye was the first Communion with Jesus. The wine they used had to be close to 6 months old. Before we start some "shoot from the hip responses" read the article first please.
"Our Lord in
instituting the Supper after Passover, availed himself of the
expression invariably employed by his countrymen in
speaking of the wine of the Passover. On other occasions,
when employing the language of common life, he calls wine
by its ordinary name.7
Moreover, the time of the Passover was in the spring. It was held during the
first month of the Jewish calendar which is in the March/April timeframe today.
The grape harvest was in August or September. This would put Passover just about
six months away from the grape harvest season. One must remember that
pasteurization of grape juice, to keep it from turning into wine, was not invented
until 1869. As soon as grapes are crushed they begin fermenting. It is as though
grapes want to turn to wine. God made grapes so that they naturally contain the
necessary ingredients, sugar and yeast, to turn to wine. Grapes will reach almost
full alcoholic content in only five to ten days. In the first century, the Hebrews did
not have a way to store grape juice or inhibit it from fermenting until Passover."

Here is the article.
Why Did We Change the
Grape Juice to Wine
in the Communion Cup?
A Biblical View of Wine and the Cultural Influences that
Shaped the Church to Change Its Practice of Communion
by
Marion Lovett
http://www.christreformedchurch.org/PDF/WineinCommunion.pdf

Grape juice should be used at the Lord's Table because there are Christians who have been alchoholics. Others have other conscience issues regarding wine, and there is no need to cause such to stumble.

The Disciples did drink wine, and the point in Scripture is to avoid drunkenness, not wine.

Your sister in Christ,
Beth

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Grape juice should be used at the Lord's Table because there are Christians who have been alchoholics. Others have other conscience issues regarding wine, and there is no need to cause such to stumble.

The Disciples did drink wine, and the point in Scripture is to avoid drunkenness, not wine.

Your sister in Christ,
Beth

The wine the Disciple's drank was new wine (gleukos). It was a sweet wine and was non-alcoholic in content.

 

[JerryL]

The wine the Disciple's drank was new wine (gleukos). It was a sweet wine and was non-alcoholic in content.

I'm not so sure gleukos was non-alcoholic.

1098. gleukos (glyoo'-kos)

akin to glukus; sweet wine, i.e. (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine

new wine.

see GREEK glukus

Act 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Act 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. (9am)

The people thought they were drunk with new wine but Peter explained that it was too early in the morning for that. Not that new wine wouldn't get them drunk.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Barnes - New wine. gleukos. This word properly means the juice of the grape which distils before a pressure is applied, and called must. It was sweet wine; and hence the word in Greek meaning sweet was given to it. The ancients, it is said, had the art of preserving their new wine with the peculiar flavour before fermentation for a considerable time, and were in the habit of drinking it in the morning.

 

[JerryL]

New wine had to be alcoholic. When Jesus referenced putting new wine in old wineskins,(Mat 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:37) the fermentation process would cause gas buildup, which would cause an old wineskin to burst. New wine had to be put into new wineskins(Luke 5:38), which were stronger, so it could withstand the pressure buildup of the process. But, after drinking the "old" aged wine, nobody would want the new anyway.(Luke 5:39) The old is better. Both are alcoholic. Grapes start to ferment immediately after the grapes are crushed, that's why the old skins wouldn't stand the pressure. God put the yeast on the grapes, unlike most other fruits which start rotting immediately, it has to be His plan to produce wine from them.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus' parable of the wine and wineskins was a lesson showing that legalism and grace could not be mixed. The Pharisees had to change their ways in order to completely understand Christ's message.

To automatically take the view that new wine was put in new skins in to allow the fermentation process to happen is a narrow minded view because sweet unfermented wine was also kept in wineskins according to the passage.

The context of the parable provides a strong argument for the preservation and use of unfermented wine.

It is obvious from the parable that the new wine in the bottles was unfermented. If it was already fermented, there would be no significant change in the wine to cause the skins to burst. If the intention was to make fermented wine, then the wine would have been allowed to ferment before sealing the skins. In allowing the fermenting before sealing the skins, there would be no need to worry about the skins breaking
.
In light of the passage, the intention had to be to keep the new unfermented wine in the skin from fermenting ensuring the skins would not break.

New skins were preferred because new skins did not contain old fermentation matter in them.

Had new wine been used in old skins, the old yeast matters left behind would have begun a fermentation process in the new wine (a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump).

Dr William Patton, in his book Bible Wines:

The new bottles, or skins, being clean and perfectly free from all ferment, were essential for preserving the fresh unfermented juice, not that their strength might resist the force of fermentation, but, being clean and free from fermenting matter, and closely tied and sealed, so as to exclude the air, the wine would be preserved in the same state in which it was put into the skins.

He continued with this information:

Columella, who lived in the days of the Apostles, in his recipe for keeping the wine "always sweet," expressly directs that the newest must, be put in a "new amphora," or jar.

In the book Anti-Bacchus: An Essay on the Crimes, Diseases, and other Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks, Rev. B Parsons stated:

The vessel they required was not one that could bear fermentation without breaking, but one which would effectually preserve the wines from fermenting; and, therefore, the text alludes to the custom of preserving wines from fermentation, which both Pliny and Columella inform us was common at that very period when the Saviour uttered these words.

Jesus was not likening His kingdom of grace to ultimate fermentation, since this is fundamentally a decay process. His Word must remain uncorrupted and uncontaminated. If Christ's teachings of grace were to be put in old bottles, i.e., mixed with Pharisaic legalism, they would eventually ferment, or, be perverted causing utter confusion.

Leighton G Campbell states in his book Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence:

Jesus in no way condones the use of alcoholic beverages but rather the opposite. He presents new wine in a figurative sense to show the virtue of grace, in contrast to old wine, which represented the hopelessness of legalistic tradition. Like the new wine He speaks of in His parable, His teaching must not be changed (ferment), but must remain in its original form. Note Christ's words, But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

 

[JerryL]

I don't know these guys. Are they related to you? Have they written anything about why communion was changed from wine to grapejuice in the 1800's? I think my questions about the subject of the thread have been answered though. Thanks for the additional info.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Welch's supposed discovery on how to keep grape juice from turning alcoholic was not new. Welch's supposed discovery was in 1869. Rev B Parson's wrote his book in 1840 and clearly shows in his book the processes one would use to keep grape juice from turning to wine.

Welch just used more modern technology to bring about the same process that was used back in the first century AD.

 

[JerryL]

It seems this guy was the "granddaddy" of the switchover.

Edward C. Delavan (1793-1871) was a wealthy businessman who devoted much of his fortune to promoting the temperance movement. He helped establish the American Temperance Union; attacked the use of wine in Christian communion; established a temperance hotel in Albany, New York; traveled to Europe to promote teetotalism; sent a copy of a temperance tract to every soldier in the Union Army during the Civil War (a million copies in all); and sponsored a series of periodicals. They included the Journal of the American Temperance Union, the Temperance Recorder, the American Temperance Intelligencer; the Enquirer, and the Prohibitionist. Prohibition or dry towns in Illinois and Wisconsin were named in his honor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Delevan

Delavan's attack on Christian communion wine produced controversy among temperance leaders in 1835. Delavan insisted that the "wine" mentioned in the Bible was unfermented grape juice. This dispute grew so bitter that Delavan left the Presbyterian church to become an Episcopalian. Delavan's religious argument did not appeal to his friends, abolitionist Gerrit Smith and Eliphalet Nott, president of Union College. They were willing to give up wine for ceremonial purposes but only on grounds of consistency and expediency. Smith and others scorned Delavan's approach, but, after a gentlemanly public disagreement, Nott yielded to Delavan, who became one of Union College's trustees from 1837 to 1870 and a major donor. He gave the college a substantial collection of minerals and shells in 1858.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/albany/bios/d/ecdelavananb.html

 

[standingfirminChrist]

To show the foolishness of the thought of communion wine being alcoholic in content one need only look at Scripture. Priests were forbidden to drink wine in the tabernacle.

This was speaking of alcoholic wine.

Since priests are not supposed to drink wine as Scripture declares, then priests would be forbidden to participate in communion.

The only way wine would be accepted in the Communion would be if it were non alcoholic in content as it was at the first. Jesus took the cup which contained the fruit of the vine and gave it all to His Disciples and said 'Drink ye all of it.'

Communion wine was never meant to be alcoholic in content.

 

[Palatka51]

To show the foolishness of the thought of communion wine being alcoholic in content one need only look at Scripture. Priests were forbidden to drink wine in the tabernacle.

This was speaking of alcoholic wine.

Since priests are not supposed to drink wine as Scripture declares, then priests would be forbidden to participate in communion.

The only way wine would be accepted in the Communion would be if it were non alcoholic in content as it was at the first. Jesus took the cup which contained the fruit of the vine and gave it all to His Disciples and said 'Drink ye all of it.'

Communion wine was never meant to be alcoholic in content.

Amen Brother, amen. :thumbs:

 

[JerryL]

To show the foolishness of the thought of communion wine being alcoholic in content one need only look at Scripture. Priests were forbidden to drink wine in the tabernacle.

This was speaking of alcoholic wine.

Since priests are not supposed to drink wine as Scripture declares, then priests would be forbidden to participate in communion.
The only way wine would be accepted in the Communion would be if it were non alcoholic in content as it was at the first. Jesus took the cup which contained the fruit of the vine and gave it all to His Disciples and said 'Drink ye all of it.'

Communion wine was never meant to be alcoholic in content.

Priests didn't participate in communion. Jesus instituted the first communion and it wasn't for the priests, it was for His followers. Priests weren't invited, unless, they dropped judism and folled Him.

 

[Palatka51]

Isaiah 28:7
7But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.

 

[JerryL]

The first thing we have to grasp is that Jesus IS God. He made everything. He made the yeast on the wineskins for a purpose, to make wine. He is the same God that is talked about in Psalms 104.
The whole chapter talks about God and the things he made. God/Jesus, the same.

Psa 104:15 And wine(yayin (yah'-yin) which makes man's heart glad, So that he may make his face glisten with oil, And food which sustains man's heart.

3196. yayin (yah'-yin)
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by implication, intoxication -- banqueting, wine, wine(-bibber).

Jdg 9:13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

A rhetorical question begging the answer of no.

This is God/Jesus, one and the same. There are tons of Scripture that says wine is good. There are Scriptures that say the ABUSE of wine is bad, not the wine itself.