wine or grape juice ? (holy supper)

[twin1954]

The original Baptists in America were Calvinists--they literally came over on the Mayflower. I'd expect many still are. Calvinist Baptists brought the concept of "separation of Church and State" to the US.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Because that is what I am, a Calvinistic Baptist.

Same here. Calvinism is not a denomination.

 

[Willie T]

My wife and I have used coca cola and triskets when we had nothing else.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Type and anti- type must have agreement. The symbolic nature of the wine must agree with what it symbolizes. Just as baptism symbolizes Union in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, the elements in the Lord's Supper represent feeding on the body and blood of Christ by faith. Therefore it must be unleavened bread and wine.

Considering that wine is no more similar to blood than grape juice, the only consideration being its color, I would have to disagree. Symbolism is a thing which exists solely in the mind of its beholder. That is the only thing to consider. If juice is not symbolic to you, then you don't need to use it. If it is symbolic to me, then you cannot deny that it holds symbolism to me.

You could have made another case, that God only sees wine as symbolic of his blood, which is to say that you might claim that God doesn't see juice as symbolic. You could also have said that he specifically commanded it that way, and we should follow (barring any debate as to whether white wine is symbolic). On the first point of the argument that you didn't make I would have said that we don't know one whit about what God does not find symbolic. We only know one thing that he does suggest as symbolic. Quite likely God does not personally deal in symbols, so much as he effectively relates with us humans, who do. On the second point that you didn't make, I would have said it was a valid argument, except that I believe that the term "wine" was used to refer to all products of the vine, fermented or not (wine is a transliteration of vine, though unlike you my skill at etymology does not extend far into the Greek). However, God never prohibited the use of our unfermented wine. He made no statement, in fact, as to the regulation of what should be used.

I would emphasize the fact that wine is not regulated, being that communion is a reinterpretation of the Passover feast. Exodus 12 defines the Passover in its most original terms. In its inception the wine is never mentioned, though the type of bread used is heavily restricted. One could easily argue that Christ used wine because it was what happened to be on the table at the time, and that it was the color of blood. There was no practical chance of it being the unfermented type. He would have had to go out of his way to arrange for juice. If he had gone out of his way for juice, then that would have been a condemnation of wine. The fact that he had to take no special effort to get wine on the table makes it no special condemnation of juice.

But...if wine satisfies your mind, then by all means do as your conscience sees fit.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not going to assert that grape juice is not acceptable to the Lord in communion.

However, in terms of symbolism, wine was explicitly the symbol that the Lord chose to represent His blood, and wine is not grape juice.

We could debate "fruit of the vine" and split all kinds of hairs, and maybe it doesn't even matter--maybe Coca-Cola and Triskets work fine.

But I think people who use grape juice for communion and people who insist on full immersion baptism can't logically be the same people.

 

[twin1954]

Considering that wine is no more similar to blood than grape juice, the only consideration being its color, I would have to disagree. Symbolism is a thing which exists solely in the mind of its beholder. That is the only thing to consider. If juice is not symbolic to you, then you don't need to use it. If it is symbolic to me, then you cannot deny that it holds symbolism to me.

You could have made another case, that God only sees wine as symbolic of his blood, which is to say that you might claim that God doesn't see juice as symbolic. You could also have said that he specifically commanded it that way, and we should follow (barring any debate as to whether white wine is symbolic). On the first point of the argument that you didn't make I would have said that we don't know one whit about what God does not find symbolic. We only know one thing that he does suggest as symbolic. Quite likely God does not personally deal in symbols, so much as he effectively relates with us humans, who do. On the second point that you didn't make, I would have said it was a valid argument, except that I believe that the term "wine" was used to refer to all products of the vine, fermented or not (wine is a transliteration of vine, though unlike you my skill at etymology does not extend far into the Greek). However, God never prohibited the use of our unfermented wine. He made no statement, in fact, as to the regulation of what should be used.

I would emphasize the fact that wine is not regulated, being that communion is a reinterpretation of the Passover feast. Exodus 12 defines the Passover in its most original terms. In its inception the wine is never mentioned, though the type of bread used is heavily restricted. One could easily argue that Christ used wine because it was what happened to be on the table at the time, and that it was the color of blood. There was no practical chance of it being the unfermented type. He would have had to go out of his way to arrange for juice. If he had gone out of his way for juice, then that would have been a condemnation of wine. The fact that he had to take no special effort to get wine on the table makes it no special condemnation of juice.

But...if wine satisfies your mind, then by all means do as your conscience sees fit.

Wine is purified by a natural process grape juice isn't. I would argue that, as in the Old Testament alter and the Ark, anything man puts his hand to is not acceptable.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Considering that wine is no more similar to blood than grape juice, the only consideration being its color, I would have to disagree. Symbolism is a thing which exists solely in the mind of its beholder. That is the only thing to consider. If juice is not symbolic to you, then you don't need to use it. If it is symbolic to me, then you cannot deny that it holds symbolism to me.

Color is not a problem if you are talking about red grapes, but green and purple grapes will look different.

The reason it matters to me is what you said later in your post: that it only could have been wine. Now if you want argue about the symbolism, consider the fact that there are symbols God created. It is incorrect to claim God does not care about symbols. Certainly doing Communion is symbolic either way but wine is the obvious choice for symbolizing the Last Supper Communion and blood of Jesus.

 

[JackRT]

They say the alcohol content in the day would have been much lower than today's standard.

They say wrong. in the Mediterranean world wine was brewed to its maximum alcohol content of about 16%. At that concentration fermentation stops because the alcohol kills the yeast. Biblically this was known as "strong drink" --- distillation did not become common till many centuries later. Normally it was mixed with water to bring the alcoholic content down to 5-10%. Beer was widely consumed by the peasantry because having a reliable water supply was iffy and water "spoiled" quickly. It was a "small beer" of about 2-3%.

 

[Jonaitis]

They say wrong. in the Mediterranean world wine was brewed to its maximum alcohol content of about 16%. At that concentration fermentation stops because the alcohol kills the yeast. Biblically this was known as "strong drink" --- distillation did not become common till many centuries later. Normally it was mixed with water to bring the alcoholic content down to 5-10%. Beer was widely consumed by the peasantry because having a reliable water supply was iffy and water "spoiled" quickly. It was a "small beer" of about 2-3%.

I was referring to every day use of wine, not generally speaking. I addressed this in my other post.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Do Baptist churches use grape juice just because it is cheaper or do they have issues with alcohol content in one ounce of wine?

 

[baptist4life]

I'm a lifelong Baptist. Every Baptist church I've ever attended in my 68 years uses grape juice for communion. Never gave it an extra thought. Don't see ANYTHING wrong, or un-Biblical about it.
I do have a question though, for those that use real wine containing alcohol. HOW do you legally serve alcoholic wine to underage parishioners? Serving alcohol to a minor? Is that not against the law?

 

[GodLovesCats]

I'm a lifelong Baptist. Every Baptist church I've ever attended in my 68 years uses grape juice for communion. Never gave it an extra thought. Don't see ANYTHING wrong, or un-Biblical about it.

I do have a question though, for those that use real wine containing alcohol. HOW do you legally serve alcoholic wine to underage parishioners? Serving alcohol to a minor? Is that not against the law?

There is such a thing as non-alcoholic wine.

 

[baptist4life]

There is such a thing as non-alcoholic wine.

Yea....it's called grape juice!

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yea....it's called grape juice!

I was thinking of something else.

 

[twin1954]

I'm a lifelong Baptist. Every Baptist church I've ever attended in my 68 years uses grape juice for communion. Never gave it an extra thought. Don't see ANYTHING wrong, or un-Biblical about it.
I do have a question though, for those that use real wine containing alcohol. HOW do you legally serve alcoholic wine to underage parishioners? Serving alcohol to a minor? Is that not against the law?

We are not serving alcohol to minors, we are serving communion to them. A capful of wine has so little alcohol in it that it doesn't make a difference.

 

[baptist4life]

Again....I'm not sure what Baptist churches you all are attending, but as I said, in my 68 years of attending numerous Baptist churches, I have NEVER seen even one that served wine for communion.

 

[twin1954]

Again....I'm not sure what Baptist churches you all are attending, but as I said, in my 68 years of attending numerous Baptist churches, I have NEVER seen even one that served wine for communion.

I don't doubt that at all. But that doesn't make the use of grape juice biblical.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Again....I'm not sure what Baptist churches you all are attending, but as I said, in my 68 years of attending numerous Baptist churches, I have NEVER seen even one that served wine for communion.

Nobody is saying some Baptist churches do serve wine for communion. The only question is whether they should switch or keep giving people grape juice.

The Bible is very clear. It must be wine, not only because Jesus said it was wine, but also the fact that, as someone pointed out earlier, in the first century nothing could prevent grapes from fermenting. We are in grape season now, so Israel could not have had grapes fresh off the trees in early April.

 

[ml5363]

All the churches I have been in all have used grape juice ...

The last one we went to preached that it was fruit of the vine...that Christ being holy, spotless and pure could not partake in fermented beverage...

 

[JackRT]

All the churches I have been in all have used grape juice ...

The last one we went to preached that it was fruit of the vine...that Christ being holy, spotless and pure could not partake in fermented beverage...

But he did at the Last Supper. That took place at Passover in the spring. Grape juice was only available in the fall harvest season because wild yeasts would within a matter of days start the natural fermentation of the grape juice.