Communion wine

[PreachersWife2004]

nit picker...lol!

Yep, but I gots my reasons. I've asked that question several times now, but no one addresses it, because it creates a flaw in the logic being used as to why they believe Christ is commanding that we use grape wine.

Anyway, back to the O/P, still haven't heard from my pastor as to which type of wine we use, not that it matters on this thread any more.

Let's see, you probably have a communion Sunday coming up, right? Sneak into the sacristy (or wherever they prep for communion) and look at the bottle. Our bottle is actually sitting on the shelf in the sacristy.

One thing I love about us Lutherans, we love to argue. Makes life interesting.

I like a good debate, but I don't like it when people start flinging needless insults around, and that seems to happen far too often around here.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I understand what you are saying, I don't personally believe we should do it because he commanded. I just think we should use wine, because he used wine.

Even with water cutting it, it is still wine.

 

[RadMan]

So does your church add water to the wine?

I didn't say how we observe it I said how the first century church observed it. The whole point is that it was wine , not grape juice.

The minute grapes are pressed they begin to ferment becasue of the sugar. SInce there was no refrigeration at that time except for some springs it began to turn right away. The alcohol is a natural preservative to lessen the spoilage so it would be very unlikely that it would be grape juice for very long.

 

[DaRev]

I could start a Lutheran congregation where we use plastic cups, fill them with grape juice, and use leavened crackers for each congregant to dip on his or her own. This would all be served by women.

It would still be valid communion in my opinion, just not the way I would prefer it!

j/k

You posted this just to get my gall, didn't you?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm just asking if your church mixes the wine with water.

I have no doubt in my mind that what Jesus had in his cup was wine.

There were ways to conserve grape juice but I think that probably held only for those who were wealthy. The ancient Roman statesman, Cato, said: “If you wish to have must [grape-juice] all year, put grape-juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After 30 days take it out. It will be grape-juice for a whole year”.

Now, I wasn't around with Cato, so I really have no idea if this actually worked or not.

I didn't say how we observe it I said how the first century church observed it. The whole point is that it was wine , not grape juice.

The minute grapes are pressed they begin to ferment becasue of the sugar. SInce there was no refrigeration at that time except for some springs it began to turn right away. The alcohol is a natural preservative to lessen the spoilage so it would be very unlikely that it would be grape juice for very long.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I actually just looked up the word gall. I never quite understood what it mean, other than I knew it had vinegar in it.

It's ANIMAL BILE!

Ew.

You posted this just to get my gall, didn't you?

 

[LilLamb219]

I'm curious where in scriptures it is stated that water was added to the wine (I'm not being sarcastic)?

Besides saying, Take Eat and Take Drink, Jesus also said, "This do..."

Does God get picky? Yes, He does and we can look to Moses and the rock as an example.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The bible doesn't say to add water. But the idea that Christ is commanding us to use only grape wine and unleavened bread because that was the practice at the time means that those that believe that should also be adding water to the wine because there is historical proof that water was often added to the wine. There's also the fact that wine back in those days was not near as strong as the wine we use today. There are so many little nitpicky things that are different about present-day communion versus NT communion.

I fully believe God is picky, too, but I don't think He's looking down and saying "tsk tsk, they're not using grape wine for their communion. How dare they?!"

I do agree that wine should always be used. I do agree that it should be grape wine, as grapes are the fruit of the vine (as much as I love the tomato argument, I have NEVER heard tomatoes referred to as the fruit of the vine!). I don't like common usage of grape juice in communion. But I also do not believe that we were commanded to only use grape wine and unleavened bread. I think using wine and bread in communion is perfectly acceptable

I'm curious where in scriptures it is stated that water was added to the wine (I'm not being sarcastic)?

Besides saying, Take Eat and Take Drink, Jesus also said, "This do..."

Does God get picky? Yes, He does and we can look to Moses and the rock as an example.

 

[DaRev]

Yep, but I gots my reasons. I've asked that question several times now, but no one addresses it, because it creates a flaw in the logic being used as to why they believe Christ is commanding that we use grape wine.

I think I've answered this twice and I know that Kae also addressed it. It helps when folks read what's posted. It avoids arguments and hard feelings.

But to avoid further argument, here's the command:

Matthew 26:27-29 (ESV)
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

A little grammar lesson is needed.

The word "this" is a near demonstrative pronoun and is used in place of a noun elsewhere in the sentence. "This" is used twice in the sentence and has the same referent both times. In both cases it refers back to "it", which itself has as a referent "the cup". What's in the cup? That is answered with the second use of "this", namely, "the fruit of the vine." Thus the contents of the cup is clearly defined and is part of the command.

Grammatically, a command is an imperative. The word "drink" in verse 27 is an imperative verb form, thus the command. What is the command? It is "Drink of it." Drink of what? The cup. What's in the cup? Jesus tells us in verse 29 what's in the cup, namely the "fruit of the vine." In first century Palestine that would have been fermented grape juice, or wine, which was part of the Passover meal. So the command, following grammatical guidelines, is "Drink of this cup of the fruit of the vine. This is My blood..."


Now, also to clarify, I never said that the blood of Christ is absolutely not present in regular grape juice. What I said was that I am not convinced that it is because it is outside of the command. I don't believe that there is a guarantee that anything other than what Jesus used in the institution of the Lord's Supper, namely unleavened bread and fermented grape wine, convey's the Sacramet.

Also, others here have repeatedly said that we shouldn't worry about the elements but rather the word of God. Two things. First, the word of God specifically mentions the elements to be used. And second, the Sacraments are the combination of the elements and the word of God. While the Word is in itself Sacramental, apart from the elements of bread and wine, there is no Lord's Supper. And apart from the element of water, there is no Baptism. The commands are clear, the words are clear. Thus the basis of my stance on the matter.
And until someone can convince me otherwise, I will continue to hold to such.
Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

(Now where have I heard that before? )

 

[RadMan]

I'm curious where in scriptures it is stated that water was added to the wine (I'm not being sarcastic)?

Besides saying, Take Eat and Take Drink, Jesus also said, "This do..."

Does God get picky? Yes, He does and we can look to Moses and the rock as an example.

The point being made wasn't if there was water in wine. The point is weather it was wine at all. If you read my previous post on the observance in the 1-2 century Martyr mentions that the water and wine were mixed. Not that it is necessary to do it that way. It's just that wine was used. Not grape juice.

Who knows why they mixed water with wine. As BL metioned before, the mixture is still wine.

 

[DaRev]

The reason that the RCC adds water to the communion wine is that's what flowed from Jesus' side when the spear was thrust into him, water and blood. Jesus says that His blood is "poured out for many", referring to the shedding of His blood on the cross. And since they hold to transubstantiation, the water in the wine would then "become" water and blood.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Now there's something I didn't know (the RCCs logic, not that water flowed from Jesus' side).

That's an interesting point.

Hey Rev, when you were a Catholic, did you get both the bread and the wine? Just curious.

The reason that the RCC adds water to the communion wine is that's what flowed from Jesus' side when the spear was thrust into him, water and blood. Jesus says that His blood is "poured out for many", referring to the shedding of His blood on the cross. And since they hold to transubstantiation, the water in the wine would then "become" water and blood.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think I've answered this twice and I know that Kae also addressed it. It helps when folks read what's posted. It avoids arguments and hard feelings.

But to avoid further argument, here's the command:

[/quote]Matthew 26:27-29 (ESV)
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." [/quote]

You guys were addressing Bread Alone, not my question about water and wine.

I'm not arguing this. Fruit of the vine, however, doesn't just mean wine. It is also grape juice. Of course, as I have stated, I believe firmly that it was wine that was being used in the Last Supper. I believe it is good and right to use wine. But I don't think that using grape juice is beyond the sacrament because grape juice is fruit of the vine.

A little grammar lesson is needed.

The word "this" is a near demonstrative pronoun and is used in place of a noun elsewhere in the sentence. "This" is used twice in the sentence and has the same referent both times. In both cases it refers back to "it", which itself has as a referent "the cup". What's in the cup? That is answered with the second use of "this", namely, "the fruit of the vine." Thus the contents of the cup is clearly defined and is part of the command.

And again, fruit of the vine is not always wine. So the command to drink grape WINE is not present.

Grammatically, a command is an imperative. The word "drink" in verse 27 is an imperative verb form, thus the command. What is the command? It is "Drink of it." Drink of what? The cup. What's in the cup? Jesus tells us in verse 29 what's in the cup, namely the "fruit of the vine." In first century Palestine that would have been fermented grape juice, or wine, which was part of the Passover meal. So the command, following grammatical guidelines, is "Drink of this cup of the fruit of the vine. This is My blood..."

And here is where you touch upon exactly what I have been saying. You say that because of the times, the grape juice would have been fermented. So you believe Christ is directing us to drink fermented grape juice, because that was the practice at the time. Well, so was adding water...so why don't we add water using your logic? THAT'S the question I am waiting for an answer on.

Now, also to clarify, I never said that the blood of Christ is absolutely not present in regular grape juice. What I said was that I am not convinced that it is because it is outside of the command. I don't believe that there is a guarantee that anything other than what Jesus used in the institution of the Lord's Supper, namely unleavened bread and fermented grape wine, convey's the Sacramet.

Fruit of the vine isn't fermented grape juice. It simply is grape juice.

Also, others here have repeatedly said that we shouldn't worry about the elements but rather the word of God. Two things. First, the word of God specifically mentions the elements to be used. And second, the Sacraments are the combination of the elements and the word of God. While the Word is in itself Sacramental, apart from the elements of bread and wine, there is no Lord's Supper. And apart from the element of water, there is no Baptism. The commands are clear, the words are clear. Thus the basis of my stance on the matter.
And until someone can convince me otherwise, I will continue to hold to such.
Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.

(Now where have I heard that before? )

The word of God specifically mentions bread and fruit of the vine.

 

[RadMan]

I don't know the practice in RCC communion but I remember reading at one time the bread was given to the communicants and the wine was guzzled....err drank by the priest. Maybe that's why there were so many retreats for alcoholic priests. There was one not to far from my previous house and it was LARGE.

 

[DaRev]

Hey Rev, when you were a Catholic, did you get both the bread and the wine? Just curious.

No. In fact they started offering the Cup just before I left the church.

And here is where you touch upon exactly what I have been saying. You say that because of the times, the grape juice would have been fermented. So you believe Christ is directing us to drink fermented grape juice, because that was the practice at the time. Well, so was adding water...so why don't we add water using your logic? THAT'S the question I am waiting for an answer on.

I also mentioned this several posts back, but it apparently was missed. The practice of adding water wasn't always done. In many cases it depended on the potency. There is no mention of having water added to the cup that was used in the institution of the Sacrament, thus that practice would be adiaphora. What was in the cup, namely fermented grape wine, is known from the context of Scripture as a whole. There are several places where it is made known that wine, not unfermented juice, was used in the Passover. St. Paul also make allusion to the fact that it is wine used in the Sacrament in his letter to the Corinthians where he addresses the proper practice of the Sacrament. His rebuke was, in part, due to the fact that the Corinthians were getting drunk on the blood of Christ. Thus we know by the word of God that grape wine was used in the Sacrament.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I vote we switch to plum wine. lol

 

[PreachersWife2004]

No. In fact they started offering the Cup just before I left the church.

That's sad, but what I expected. I will say, I'm glad you're Lutheran now!!

I also mentioned this several posts back, but it apparently was missed. The practice of adding water wasn't always done. In many cases it depended on the potency. There is no mention of having water added to the cup that was used in the institution of the Sacrament, thus that practice would be adiaphora. What was in the cup, namely fermented grape wine, is known from the context of Scripture as a whole. There are several places where it is made known that wine, not unfermented juice, was used in the Passover. St. Paul also make allusion to the fact that it is wine used in the Sacrament in his letter to the Corinthians where he addresses the proper practice of the Sacrament. His rebuke was, in part, due to the fact that the Corinthians were getting drunk on the blood of Christ. Thus we know by the word of God that grape wine was used in the Sacrament.

I don't think anyone is doubting that we should use wine in communion. I know I'm not.

My whole point is that the command was to eat bread and drink fruit of the vine. Now, we know what the practices were, so it is best that we use the practices that were in place. I just don't think using a wine that isn't made from grapes (gosh, really, how many are there? I don't know of any church that is using dandelion wine.) or having grape juice negates the sacrament. I do appreciate that you have stipulated that you are not claiming that they are not present, only that you do not feel comfortable in saying they are present. I realize there's a fine line there, but I understand what you mean.

I think it is important that we stick as closely to God's word when we use the sacraments. We just have to be very careful when we start saying that such and such was COMMANDED when only this was commanded. Part of the reason we as Lutherans use sprinkling in baptism is to negate those that believe that one MUST be submersed to be fully baptized. We say the power lies in the word and the water, not the method of baptism. But many people believe in full immersion because it was most likely how Jesus was baptized.

 

[LilLamb219]

I was just asking for scriptural reference is all because I hadn't heard about water being added before to the wine.

The point being made wasn't if there was water in wine. The point is weather it was wine at all. If you read my previous post on the observance in the 1-2 century Martyr mentions that the water and wine were mixed. Not that it is necessary to do it that way. It's just that wine was used. Not grape juice.

Who knows why they mixed water with wine. As BL metioned before, the mixture is still wine.

 

[LilLamb219]

At the RC churches here, both are offered (bread and cup) but not all choose to use the cup because it is a common cup (chalice) and I guess some people are fearful of germs.

 

[BabyLutheran]

At the RC churches here, both are offered (bread and cup) but not all choose to use the cup because it is a common cup (chalice) and I guess some people are fearful of germs.

Actually the RC belief is that either/or = both. Where they got that from, I have no idea.