Arguments FOR using wine in the Lords Supper

[Kevin]

In an other thread the question was ask "what are some of the reasons NOT to use wine". In that conversation a lot of the reasons that we all have heard were assembled. A few mention reasons FOR wine.

So I would like to hear some of the reasons that you have used/heard over the years for the use of "real wine" in the Lords Supper.

Thanks.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The Bible says "wine" not "grape juice".

 

[KMK]

Wine was used without controversy for thousands of years until the Methodists started using grape juice. Wine is still used in most of the world. It is incumbent, therefore, on the teetotaler minority to explain why the element should be changed.

 

[greenbaggins]

A couple of things come to mind (and some of these are in reaction to the other thread).

1. The "watered-down" argument doesn't fly, since wine in classical times was concentrated, and had to be watered down to get to a drinkable level. Their watered down wine was probably fairly equivalent to our strong wine, in addition to the argument adduced by the one person on the board about watering down our wine, and then using that. People object to the fact that there is any alcohol at all in the communion wine.

2. The many passages that indicate the non-sinfulness of alcohol in and of itself also argue against the reasons adduced against alcohol in communion. This includes the use of strong drink (which is stronger than wine) in the Old Testament sacrifices.

3. There is a Greek word for unfermented grape juice: the Gospel writers didn't use it to describe the Lord's Supper. They used the word for wine.

4. Alcoholics Anonymous said once that if a guy goes back to alcoholism because of a thimble-full of wine, he was going to go back to alcoholism anyway.

 

[au5t1n]

It really boils down to the regulative principle, doesn't it? The question is, what is elemental and what is circumstancial. I think a case can be made that "bread" and "wine" are Scripturally elemental. Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon both meet the definition in spite of having circumstantial differences. Before replacing wine with grape juice it must be proven that grape juice meets the definition of wine. In the absence of this proof, by the RPW, we are restricted to real wine.

 

[Bookmeister]

Having been an alcoholic for 15 years I think I have a perspective and a voice to speak on this. The Bible says wine, we should use wine. I agree with point #4 from Lane's post. Having an alcoholic in the congregation should not be used as an argument against wine. If one is going to return to drinking it has nothing to do with the sacrament but rather everything to do with the individual not wanting to give up his sin.

 

[Kevin]

Thanks for sharing that Alan.

 

[Romans922]

3. There is a Greek word for unfermented grape juice: the Gospel writers didn't use it to describe the Lord's Supper. They used the word for wine.

Lane, what greek word is that, where could I find an example of its use? I desire to study that more.

 

[Philip]

Before replacing wine with grape juice it must be proven that grape juice meets the definition of wine. In the absence of this proof, by the RPW, we are restricted to real wine.

Define "wine" from the Bible. The trouble is that as soon as you say this, whoever defines the terms controls the outcome. The whole question is how "wine" is to be defined for the purposes of sacramental practice.

There is a Greek word for unfermented grape juice

Does this word appear anywhere in Scripture? Does the word for wine refer to beverages made from grapes generally, or does it refer to wine and only to wine? I am asking for the purposes of clarification (not being a Greek scholar) as to what the shades of meaning are.

What is the minimum alcoholic content that a beverage made from grapes should have for it to be considered wine?

 

[au5t1n]

Before replacing wine with grape juice it must be proven that grape juice meets the definition of wine. In the absence of this proof, by the RPW, we are restricted to real wine.

Define "wine" from the Bible. The trouble is that as soon as you say this, whoever defines the terms controls the outcome. The whole question is how "wine" is to be defined for the purposes of sacramental practice.

I'll grant this, adding that any definition given should be defensible from Scripture. I gave one in the other thread ("fruit of the vine (grapes) that has gone through the fermentation process") that I think I could defend as the way Scripture uses "oinos" without too much difficulty. The amount of alcohol will vary based on the grapes used, the process, and other factors, just as the amount of resveratrol will vary.

 

[KMK]

What is the minimum alcoholic content that a beverage made from grapes should have for it to be considered wine?

High enough that when partaken of in excess will cause drunkenness.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess...

 

[greenbaggins]

3. There is a Greek word for unfermented grape juice: the Gospel writers didn't use it to describe the Lord's Supper. They used the word for wine.

Lane, what greek word is that, where could I find an example of its use? I desire to study that more.

The word is "trux." No, it does not occur anywhere in the NT (or LXX, for that matter). According to LS, it means "wine not yet fermented and racked off, must, : hence, new, raw wine." See page 1830 of the Liddell Scott Lexicon.

 

[Michael]

Forgive me but it seems beyond silly that anyone would need to present a convincing argument to use what our Lord himself used in his Supper. If the personal example of Christ is not enough then whoever has a problem with it will never be satisfied with any other argument or explanation.

 

[Jack K]

The cup of the Lord carries rich biblical imagery beyond the picture of timid celebration we often associate with our little cups of grape juice.

The Lord's cup is not a tame thing. It is heady and intoxicating, filling those who drink of it with a passion for fighting every enemy of the King. It is also dangerous to those who disobey. It brings on them the wrath of God, which Jeremiah pictured as drunkenness: "Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them" (Jer. 25:15-16).

Unfermented juice simply fails to carry the full biblical imagery of the Lord's cup, especially the wrath imagery that's also central to the atonement itself. Christ drank that cup of wrath so that we might partake of the cup in heady celebration. Why water it down?

 

[TimV]

Pastor K, I'm not quite with you on wine being concentrated in the ancent world. For thousands of years wine has been diluted so you can enjoy a light buzz and still function. But you can't concentrate alcohol without destroying the flavor of wine. I'd like a reference for that, or two

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The Bible says "wine" not "grape juice".

While I am convinced that the use of wine is biblical, the word "wine" (οινος) is conspicuously missing from the texts of institution (I Cor. 11:23-26; Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23). The gospels uniformly employ the phrase "fruit of the vine" and Paul simply refers to it as "the cup." We may safely assume that it was wine being referred to, but the word "wine" is not directly employed in the Words of Institution.

 

[Peairtach]

Wine is invigorating (life-giving), cleansing and intoxicating just like the life of Christ in us which life He poured out for us, indicated by His shed blood, on the Cross.

In the Old Covenant the blood of the sacrifices was not to be drunk, and drink offerings were to be poured out in front of the Tabernacle.

In the New Covenant the reality that the sacrifices pointed to is here, therefore we spiritually - and symbolically in the Lord's Supper - not only eat His flesh but also drink His blood.

 

[KMK]

Pastor K, I'm not quite with you on wine being concentrated in the ancent world. For thousands of years wine has been diluted so you can enjoy a light buzz and still function. But you can't concentrate alcohol without destroying the flavor of wine. I'd like a reference for that, or two

The Bible says "wine" not "grape juice".

While I am convinced that the use of wine is biblical, the word "wine" (οινος) is conspicuously missing from the texts of institution (I Cor. 11:23-26; Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23). The gospels uniformly employ the phrase "fruit of the vine" and Paul simply refers to it as "the cup." We may safely assume that it was wine being referred to, but the word "wine" is not directly employed in the Words of Institution.

Lightfoot says...

V. If he drinks wine pure, and not mingled with water, he hath performed his duty; but commonly they mingled water with it: hence, when there is mention of wine in the rubric of the feasts, they always use the word they mingle him a cup. Concerning that mingling, both Talmudists dispute in the forecited chapter of the Passover: which see. "The Rabbins have a tradition. Over wine which hath not water mingled with it they do not say that blessing, 'Blessed be He that created the fruit of the vine'; but, 'Blessed be he that created the fruit of the tree.'" The Gloss, "Their wine was very strong, and not fit to be drunk without water," &c. The Gemarists a little after: "The wise agree with R. Eleazar, 'That one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mingled with it.'" The mingling of water with every cup was requisite for health, and the avoiding of drunkenness. We have before taken notice of a story of Rabban Gamaliel, who found and confessed some disorder of mind, and unfitness for serious business, by having drunk off an Italian quart of wine. Commentary on Matt 26:27

Tim, I don't know how helpful this is but according to Lightfoot the wine was very strong and required dilution with water.

Rev Sheffield, according to Lightfoot the phrase "fruit of the vine" means wine. Although the word 'wine' does not appear in the words of institution, a phrase that means 'wine' does.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Rev Sheffield, according to Lightfoot the phrase "fruit of the vine" means wine. Although the word 'wine' does not appear in the words of institution, a phrase that means 'wine' does.

I am aware. I was responding to the claim that "the Bible says 'wine' not 'grape juice'." It does not say "wine." It says "fruit of the vine" and "the cup."

 

[Jack K]

The Bible says "wine" not "grape juice".

Does the Bible actually say "wine"? I'm not sure it does. I thought it never said more than "cup."

Of course, we know from extra-biblical sources that the cup of the Passaver meal was wine. But I'm still more comfortable arguing for wine based on the scriptural imagery of the Lord's cup (see my post above) than based on the fact that according to extra-biblical sources Jesus must have used wine.

 

[KMK]

according to extra-biblical sources Jesus must have used wine.

If 'fruit of the vine' means 'wine', as Lightfoot says, then no extra-biblical sources are needed.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Does the Bible actually say "wine"? I'm not sure it does. I thought it never said more than "cup."

Did you read my two previous posts?

 

[Jack K]

Does the Bible actually say "wine"? I'm not sure it does. I thought it never said more than "cup."

Did you read my two previous posts?

I guess I was just caught up in older posts, not paying attention. Didn't mean to overlook you or harp on the point. Mostly I'm interested in why the word "cup" is used.

 

[TimV]

Tim, I don't know how helpful this is but according to Lightfoot the wine was very strong and required dilution with water.

He doesn't say that at all. He just rightly pointed out that wine was often diluted. I think it beyond silly that anyone would doubt that Christ used regular wine. Not to say that, as Heidi once pointed out, that we can say that someone growing up Baptist, Methodist etc.. never took real communion, that's just as silly.

But my degree is in pomology and I've been making all sorts of stuff for decades, and I've read pretty much....well, lots. You can't concentrate wine. You can fortify wine by adding alcohol, or evaporating alcohol out of fruit and grain mixtures, like with whiskey, brandy and moonshine, but you can't concentrate wine.

Yeast is the same. Sugar is the same. Winemaking is the same. From here to little valleys in Armenia to Galilee 2000 years ago. To the glass I made myself that I'm drinking now, to what Lightfoot drunk. The strongest yeasts cut out at about 17% alcohol. In other words, the yeast dies after the alcohol gets higher than that. You can stop the fermentation process any time you want, and get stuff with 1,2 or 3 percent alcohol, but you can't concentrate it without distilling or fortifying.

As a bit of trivia, communion wine is often fortified to 18%, so it's still sweet. The high alcohol content is, I presume, to keep germs spreading when a common cup is sipped from. So it's like a Port.

 

[KMK]

He doesn't say that at all.

Then what does he say?

V. If he drinks wine pure, and not mingled with water, he hath performed his duty; but commonly they mingled water with it: hence, when there is mention of wine in the rubric of the feasts, they always use the word they mingle him a cup. Concerning that mingling, both Talmudists dispute in the forecited chapter of the Passover: which see. "The Rabbins have a tradition. Over wine which hath not water mingled with it they do not say that blessing, 'Blessed be He that created the fruit of the vine'; but, 'Blessed be he that created the fruit of the tree.'" The Gloss, "Their wine was very strong, and not fit to be drunk without water," &c. The Gemarists a little after: "The wise agree with R. Eleazar, 'That one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mingled with it.'" The mingling of water with every cup was requisite for health, and the avoiding of drunkenness. We have before taken notice of a story of Rabban Gamaliel, who found and confessed some disorder of mind, and unfitness for serious business, by having drunk off an Italian quart of wine. Commentary on Matt 26:27

BTW, I am not arguing for or against the strength of wine, I was just ran across this and thought it might help answer your question to Rev Keister.

 

[TimV]

The Gloss, "Their wine was very strong, and not fit to be drunk without water," &c. The Gemarists a little after: "The wise agree with R. Eleazar, 'That one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mingled with it.'" The mingling of water with every cup was requisite for health, and the avoiding of drunkenness.

It's meaningless since there's no comparison. And not informed, and just silly.

 

[KMK]

It's meaningless since there's no comparison. And not informed, and just silly.

Just for clarification, you are calling Lightfoot's statements silly? Or the Rabbins?

 

[TimV]

The wise agree with R. Eleazar, 'That one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mingled with it.'" The mingling of water with every cup was requisite for health, and the avoiding of drunkenness.

It would be silly and foolish to believe that the above means that some super duper cosmic ray affected yeast 2000 years ago do make it different than it is today. The above is just another example of the millions of quotes one can find that wine was mixed with water as a matter of course in the ANE and Mediterranean. One wonders about the logical sequences in a person's mind to take that statement and make it mean otherwise.

 

[VictorBravo]

The wise agree with R. Eleazar, 'That one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mingled with it.'" The mingling of water with every cup was requisite for health, and the avoiding of drunkenness.

It would be silly and foolish to believe that the above means that some super duper cosmic ray affected yeast 2000 years ago do make it different than it is today. The above is just another example of the millions of quotes one can find that wine was mixed with water as a matter of course in the ANE and Mediterranean. One wonders about the logical sequences in a person's mind to take that statement and make it mean otherwise.

BTW, I'd add that Isaiah didn't seem to think mixing wine with water was a good idea. He adds that among the woes of his rebellious people:

Isa 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.
Isa 1:22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:
Isa 1:23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.

 

[VictorBravo]

I'll add one other argument that "fruit of the vine" cannot be anything but fermented wine: Passover was in Spring. Grapes ripen in the Fall. Grape juice will inevitably begin to ferment after harvest and squeezing (because of the natural yeast found on the grape skins). Within just a day or two you will have a form of wine. After a month or maybe more, it will be fully fermented.

So when Spring came around, the grape juice had to be fully fermented wine unless the process was interrupted to make vinegar, or it was contaminated and spoiled.

Of course, people in Jesus' day knew all about seasons and when wine was made, so nobody really needed to explain that grape juice in Spring was wine.

I'm guessing that the natural yeast fermented it to around 12%, depending upon sugar levels. That's the best I've seen in experimenting with "wild yeasts." That also happens to be a bit above the minimum alcohol level that allows wine to remain preserved.