Thread: Water into Grape Juice -- It's a Miracle!

My wife and I were watching a special on TV recently about the wedding of the oldest Duggar child. A lot of discussions could be had about the content of that episode, but one in particular stands out. As many of you know, the Duggars are an incredibly conservative family, as is the family of the girl the boy married. Anyway, as they were going through all of the wedding preparations, the topic of alcohol came up. I guess someone was asking whether there would be any alcohol at the reception. So the father of the bride goes on to explain how alcohol is a bad thing, and how Jesus never drank. He said that when Scripture shows Jesus turning water into wine, it is REALLY just grape juice.

I've heard this explanation many times, and I don't buy it for a second. I think it's ridiculous quite frankly.

So my question is, how do people come up with that explanation? On what basis does one think that "wine" was not really "wine"?

John MacArthur is one of the most prominent reformed proponents of this view. In the links below, Robert Rayburn examines MacArthur's arguments and presents the biblical case for alcohol. These should give you a pretty good feel for where people get the argument that it was "just water."

Revising FPC Lord's Supper No.2: Wine No.1, Jan.21.2001
Revising FPC Lord's Supper No.3: Wine No.2, Feb. 4.2001
Revising FPC Lord's Supper No.4: Wine No.3, Feb.11.2001
Revising FPC Lord's Supper No.5: Wine No.4, Feb.25.2001

Tripel;

So my question is, how do people come up with that explanation? On what basis does one think that "wine" was not really "wine"?

One of the explanation's I've heard is that wine causes drunkenness, drunkenness is a sin, so therefore Jesus would not have created wine where people could get drunk..

Originally Posted by BJClark

Tripel;

So my question is, how do people come up with that explanation? On what basis does one think that "wine" was not really "wine"?

One of the explanation's I've heard is that wine causes drunkenness, drunkenness is a sin, so therefore Jesus would not have created wine where people could get drunk..

Yep. By the same measure, one could also say that food causes gluttony, gluttony is a sin, therefore God could not have given us food whereby people could overeat.

This is one of the reasons our Lord chastises the Pharisees in passages like Mark 7, where they are so concerned with the externals that they forget that it is the wicked hearts of men that are the source of their sins. Sinful human beings abuse the good gifts of God, be it wine or food or whatever. And throwing away the external does nothing to cure the heart of sin.

So my question is, how do people come up with that explanation? On what basis does one think that "wine" was not really "wine"?

When you're drinking that special kind of kool-aid! Seriously, I think it's just a man-made law they can keep and it makes them feel righteous. We all do that with one thing or another...it's our nature!

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 09:57:21 EST-----

It is my understanding that unfermented fruit of the vine will turn in a hot climate if it is not allowed to ferment. It would have been vary dangerous to drink plain ol' grape juice until the late 1800s, where a dentist named Welch found out that Louis Pasteur's process could be applied to grape juice. Welch, btw, tried the process precisely because he saw the way that wine was being abused in his Methodist church during communion services, and wanted a non-alcoholic substitute. While I think his intentions were honorable, dealing with externals does not deal with the heart of sin.

I think those who advocate water into grape juice are just not facing reality. I am sure all of them would be teetotal and fitting the scripture into their views. I think quite often it is a persons unthinking tradition (in this case abstinance) that determines how we understand the scriptures. In some cases it may be where people are very legalistic in their faith where Christianity amounts to nothing more than not doing this and not doing that. Very much like the Pharisees in Jesus day.

Expereince can also play a part. It is certainly true that there are great dangers in alcohol and a lot of harm and heartache have resulted from its misuse. Perhaps one has seen Christians misuse of aclohol ruining their witness and decide they will abstain because of that.

One can practice abstainance through choice but that is not binding on everyone else's choice. One can decide to abstain but you cannot argue scripture teaches abstainance. The only time in scripture abstainance is taught is when one takes the vow of the Nazarite. The Rechabites in Jer 35 abstained because of a vow taken by their father

Here's a brief excerpt about Welch:

Most United Methodists are aware that one of our practices is the use of unfermented juice of the grape for Holy Communion. While some other Protestant bodies share this practice, the possibility of the practice goes back to the late 19th century and a Methodist dentist named Thomas Bramwell Welch. (See Welch's - History.) Apparently Welch had scruples about the use of wine and had heard of Louis Pasteur's process of pasteurization of milk. Welch was successful in applying the process to grape juice, and he began to use it in his church, where he was a Communion steward.

His son, Dr. Charles Welch, was an enterprising Methodist layman (a dentist, like his father) from southern New Jersey. He marketed the pasteurized grape juice to temperance-minded evangelical Protestants as authentic biblical "wine." As word spread and as the temperance movement grew among evangelical Protestant churches, Welch left dentistry and produced Welch's Grape Juice commercially.

Also, here's a short excellent article that brought this issue to my attention several years ago/

If you ever do a tour in Israel, when you get to Cana the souvenier shops sell little bottles of authentic Cana grape juice and little bottles of authentic Cana wine. We thought it was incredible funny.

We knew an elder who passed around wine in a fancy goblet for a special communion at a small group. He wiped the rim after each person sipped. Later one person thanked him for wiping the rim with alcohol so germs would not get passed around. Never did tell them the terrible truth

I have read that the alcohol content was not nearly what it is today. You have to remember that decades, even centuries of plant breeding has produced high sugar grapes, which makes high alcohol. The grapes back then, like all the fruits back then compared to today's highly hybridized crops, were probably much smaller and different in many ways.

When I was a chaplain at Ft. Sill we had Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians (etc.) in the Brigade chapel on Sunday mornings. When we served communion we put white wine in the inner circle of the communion tray and purple grape juice in the outer rings. When people took the cup, they could, based on their conscience, choose either wine or grape juice.

There is an OPC congregation near me that also puts juice in the outer ring and wine in the inner or maybe it is the other way around?

I'll never forget when my wife and I visited Joe Morecraft's church. They serve the Lord's Supper every week, and when the cups were passed around and we partook, the wine was so strong that it almost took my breath away (every glass was wine, IIRC). I leaned over and whispered to my wife, "That's Merlot!"

Originally Posted by sjonee

So my question is, how do people come up with that explanation? On what basis does one think that "wine" was not really "wine"?

When you're drinking that special kind of kool-aid! Seriously, I think it's just a man-made law they can keep and it makes them feel righteous. We all do that with one thing or another...it's our nature!

It's called .... presuppositions. If you assume a priori that drinking any amount of any form of alcohol is a sin, then you read the Bible differently than if you allow the Bible to tell you whether drinking wine is a sin.

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 11:26:39 EST-----

Originally Posted by dalecosby

There is an OPC congregation near me that also puts juice in the outer ring and wine in the inner or maybe it is the other way around?

If it matters to you it's good to keep that kind of thing straight!

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by dalecosby

There is an OPC congregation near me that also puts juice in the outer ring and wine in the inner or maybe it is the other way around?

If it matters to you it's good to keep that kind of thing straight!

I would take the safe road and drink both--just to be sure I had the right one.

All I can add is that I've never particullarly known plain old grape juice to gladden my heart.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

It is my understanding that unfermented fruit of the vine will turn in a hot climate if it is not allowed to ferment. It would have been vary dangerous to drink plain ol' grape juice until the late 1800s, where a dentist named Welch found out that Louis Pasteur's process could be applied to grape juice.

That's what makes it so miraculous, Marrow Man!

Nonstick cookware gives us good pancakes. Good pancakes make me overeat. Nonstick cookware is sinful.

My father-in-law holds to that view. I am a bit surprised that no one has brought up the remarks of the governor of the feast. He not only noted it was alcohol, but that it was REALLY INTOXICATING alcohol...the good stuff no one would normally waste on the drunk. My point is that you really have to ignore the text to believe that Jesus made grape juice.

I have a question based on the tenor of this thread: does the liquid in the communion cup have to be fermented wine in order to be considered valid in the sacrament?

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

My father-in-law holds to that view. I am a bit surprised that no one has brought up the remarks of the governor of the feast. He not only noted it was alcohol, but that it was REALLY INTOXICATING alcohol...the good stuff no one would normally waste on the drunk. My point is that you really have to ignore the text to believe that Jesus made grape juice.

I'm not sure I can find in that text anything in the master of the feast's words that indicates that it was "REALLY INTOXICATING WINE". Let's not add to what's there. All that's said there is "the good wine". His complaint is like one saying, "okay, you've been serving these people the Gallo wine-in-a-box all evening, and NOW, you bring out the Chateaux Lafitte???" "good" just means "good". Good quality and taste. You don't serve that when the guests have been drinking all evening and won't appreciate its taste. One of the reasons teetotallers get so upset about our claims that this wine is truly alcoholic wine is that supporters of drinking make false statements trying to support their point.

Jesus made good wine - excellent stuff - that the governor thought would be wasted on the guests that had already been drinking for a while. Not "really intoxicating" wine. It's just not in the text, and there's no good reason to insert the idea.

Todd, perhaps I overstated the point, but I think you are understating it. In John 2:10 the governor remarks that the bad stuff only comes out after the good stuff has numbed their palates. I agree that quality is in view...but intoxication is too.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

I have a question based on the tenor of this thread: does the liquid in the communion cup have to be fermented wine in order to be considered valid in the sacrament?

No, I don't think so. Our church never does so, and I think many churches hold to the "nonalcoholic communion wine" principle just in case a member has a conviction against it/is a former alcoholic/etc.

A substitute in the case of necessity is valid and, in fact, I recall an instance where someone was baptized with sawdust rather than water because no water was available for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Skyler

]
A substitute in the case of necessity is valid and, in fact, I recall an instance where someone was baptized with sawdust rather than water because no water was available for whatever reason.

I'd be very surprised that sawdust would be used, instead of sprinkling a small amout of water, unless there was literally no water at all for anyone to drink even a drop. At least oil or the juice of some fruit is liquid, if alternatives were used. I'd also be very concerned about the validity of the baptism in any non-water baptism.

Regardless of whether wine or grape juice, we hold to grape-based "something" for the Supper and likewise, regardless of whether we immerse, pour, or sprinkle, we use water, because Scripture specifies those two items (however else we run with it).

In the same note, I'd be similarly concerned with non-grape-based communion wine/juice.

Numbers 13:23 - Matthew Henry:

They brought a bunch of grapes with them, and some other of the fruits of the land, as a proof of the extraordinary goodness of the country. Probably they furnished themselves with these fruits when they were leaving the country and returning. The cluster of grapes was so large and so heavy that they hung it upon a bar, and carried it between two of them, v. 23, 24.

Seems to me like they were not smaller, but actually bigger!

That reminds me - time to get a batch brewing! It's my first, and I am excited as all get out. I first need 30 empty bottles and then wait six weeks. A Cabernet Sauvingnon that won several ribbons at the Rockton World's Fair. Yum.

Originally Posted by Theoretical

Originally Posted by Skyler

]
A substitute in the case of necessity is valid and, in fact, I recall an instance where someone was baptized with sawdust rather than water because no water was available for whatever reason.

I'd be very surprised that sawdust would be used, instead of sprinkling a small amout of water, unless there was literally no water at all for anyone to drink even a drop. At least oil or the juice of some fruit is liquid, if alternatives were used. I'd also be very concerned about the validity of the baptism in any non-water baptism.

Regardless of whether wine or grape juice, we hold to grape-based "something" for the Supper and likewise, regardless of whether we immerse, pour, or sprinkle, we use water, because Scripture specifies those two items (however else we run with it)

I believe it was a time when they were in prison. I don't recall the specifics but I may be able to locate the anecdote. Let me get back to you on that.

Originally Posted by Theoretical

In the same note, I'd be similarly concerned with non-grape-based communion wine/juice.

My question was on fermented vs. non-fermented grape juice only. I was not implying anything other than grape-based contents of the cup.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Todd, perhaps I overstated the point, but I think you are understating it. In John 2:10 the governor remarks that the bad stuff only comes out after the good stuff has numbed their palates. I agree that quality is in view...but intoxication is too.

My point is that you can't read into "kalos" anything about HOW intoxicating the wine is that Jesus made, only that it was good, and to serve good wine when the guests had already imbibed intoxicating wine was off-putting to the master of the feast. You can only infer (and properly so) from the context that the wine Jesus made was alcoholic, as was the wine they had been previously drinking. The argument for the appropriateness of Christian consumption of alcohol-containing wine is easily made without leaping to extremes about Christ making some super-saturated port, or something else particularly more intoxicaing than normal alcohol-bearing wine. That's what I thought I heard you arguing, and grounding the argument on the description of the wine Jesus made (and not the context).

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Originally Posted by Theoretical

In the same note, I'd be similarly concerned with non-grape-based communion wine/juice.

My question was on fermented vs. non-fermented grape juice only. I was not implying anything other than grape-based contents of the cup.

I know your question wasn't suggesting that - it was the side point raised about that issue.

Originally Posted by Skyler

A substitute in the case of necessity is valid

? Where does this idea come from? I can't find any discussion in the Scriptures that would lead me to the position you espouse. One can make bread from something other than wheat for allergies, so that's sensible (and it's still bread). But substituting something other than the fruit of the vine (alcoholic or not) is not permissible. Substituting something other than water is not permissible. When is there TRULY a need to substitute something else for the juice (fermented or not) of grapes, and in the place of water? And again, where does the idea come from that free substitution is fine?

and, in fact, I recall an instance where someone was baptized with sawdust rather than water because no water was available for whatever reason.

No water at all is a relative statement... and I suspect that sawdust was used because of the presupposition that one is required to be fully dunked. I can't see how they'd find sawdust acceptable if using water, as is appropriate, in a small amount, would not be acceptable.

Originally Posted by Tripel

My wife and I were watching a special on TV recently about the wedding of the oldest Duggar child. A lot of discussions could be had about the content of that episode, but one in particular stands out. As many of you know, the Duggars are an incredibly conservative family, as is the family of the girl the boy married. Anyway, as they were going through all of the wedding preparations, the topic of alcohol came up. I guess someone was asking whether there would be any alcohol at the reception. So the father of the bride goes on to explain how alcohol is a bad thing, and how Jesus never drank. He said that when Scripture shows Jesus turning water into wine, it is REALLY just grape juice.

I've heard this explanation many times, and I don't buy it for a second. I think it's ridiculous quite frankly.

So my question is, how do people come up with that explanation? On what basis does one think that "wine" was not really "wine"?

I am really glad somebody brought this up. My wife and I watched the same episode and I couldn't believe the nonsense teachings that were passing for doctrine. I generally don't get frustrated by things like this but they really need to do more study before they misrepresent our Lords miracles on national television. All this grapefruit nonsense comes out of the traditions of men rather than the scripture. I remember having the same debate with a youth group leader when I was just a teenager and he used the grape juice argument as well. Its just sad that people are willing to lie instead of just admitting what we all know. YES, IT WAS WINE WITH ALCOHOL IN IT!!!!

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Skyler

A substitute in the case of necessity is valid

? Where does this idea come from? I can't find any discussion in the Scriptures that would lead me to the position you espouse. One can make bread from something other than wheat for allergies, so that's sensible (and it's still bread). But substituting something other than the fruit of the vine (alcoholic or not) is not permissible. Substituting something other than water is not permissible. When is there TRULY a need to substitute something else for the juice (fermented or not) of grapes, and in the place of water? And again, where does the idea come from that free substitution is fine?

All right, then why is it permissible to substitute unfermented grape juice for the wine that they almost certainly drank? The distinction of "grape product" isn't, to my recollection, espoused in Scripture either. What if one lives in a country where grapes aren't available?

Secondly, even if that is the case, my point was that unfermented grape juice could be substituted for wine, not some other liquid, so I don't see at what you're driving.

[qoute]

and, in fact, I recall an instance where someone was baptized with sawdust rather than water because no water was available for whatever reason.

No water at all is a relative statement... and I suspect that sawdust was used because of the presupposition that one is required to be fully dunked. I can't see how they'd find sawdust acceptable if using water, as is appropriate, in a small amount, would not be acceptable.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure. Like I said, I'll see if I can find the account.

Originally Posted by Skyler

The distinction of "grape product" isn't, to my recollection, espoused in Scripture either.

"fruit of the vine" Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18.

Originally Posted by Tripel

My wife and I were watching a special on TV recently about the wedding of the oldest Duggar child. A lot of discussions could be had about the content of that episode, but one in particular stands out. As many of you know, the Duggars are an incredibly conservative family, as is the family of the girl the boy married. Anyway, as they were going through all of the wedding preparations, the topic of alcohol came up. I guess someone was asking whether there would be any alcohol at the reception. So the father of the bride goes on to explain how alcohol is a bad thing, and how Jesus never drank. He said that when Scripture shows Jesus turning water into wine, it is REALLY just grape juice.

I've heard this explanation many times, and I don't buy it for a second. I think it's ridiculous quite frankly.

So my question is, how do people come up with that explanation? On what basis does one think that "wine" was not really "wine"?

Luke 7:33-35 blows the father of the bride's statement out of the water. Those who teach that drinking wine is a sin are effectively saying Christ sinned. Does this have a small theological dilemma attached to it?????

You know, what's interesting to me in this discussion as it pertains to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is that I don't hear many people argue for the use of unleavened bread. Personally I think that unleavened bread AND wine should be used.

Greco and I got into a discussion about that once. He told me unleavened bread types were sanctimonious.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

... Personally I think that unleavened bread AND wine should be used.

I'm also in the unleavened bread camp. But, then some people call me weird.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

I'm also in the unleavened bread camp. But, then some people call me weird.

A pastor friend of mine is also in the unleavened bread camp. I haven't discussed that with him at length or looked at the issue of leavened vs. unleavened bread myself in quite some time.

Did they happen to explain how the Corinthian believers managed to get drunk off of grape juice? (1 Cor. 11:21)

Grape juice to wine to vinegar is a continuum. It would be interesting to see where some would draw a sacramental bracket on that line.