Why Crackers and Grape Juice?

[Strong in Him]

The idea that the clergy represent Christ is a Catholic thing. I would say in Protestant theology the clergy represent the Church. The point of having certain things only clergy may do (in practice, very few, but significant), is not to disenfranchise everyone else, but to allow for proper oversight of those significant things by the Church.

I know.
I know it is good practice and there are doubtless good reasons for that. I'm just saying that, as I see it, the practice isn't Scriptural. Apart from anything else, my denomination has some serious shortages in clergy numbers, and in those offering. I would ave thought that this was something able to be handed to a lay person, so that the body of Christ does not miss out on this sacrament, and our poor Ministers are not quite so frazzled.

As a priest I've taken vows of obedience to my bishop and to the canons of my church. In effect, I've promised to do things the way that the church has discerned they should be done. I can't go off and be a maverick, saying or doing whatever I like.

Yes - and I mean no disrespect; sorry.
Maybe I'm too naive about the whole thing. But if this isn't a Scriptural practice, it puzzles me that the Church - whole church, my denomination included - is so willing to uphold it.

I would never dare say that if a lay person presides at the Eucharist, Christ is not present to those who receive. That's up to Christ.

I'm sure you wouldn't; again, I mean no disrespect.

(A communion talk by a young lay person comparing Jesus to her recently deceased dead dog stands out in my mind as a particularly awful example...).'

Sounds awful; I wonder if anyone talked to her beforehand - or indeed, afterwards?

If someone really strongly feels called to preside, such that not being able to preside is a grief to them, I'd suggest that person consider whether they're actually called to ordination.

Believe me, I've tried. And the number of people who said that I'd be a great Minister because of my people skills, was humbling.
But being a Minister is about more than that. In the UK Methodist church, if I was accepted and went through college, I'd emerge as a probationer Minister and have to lead one or more churches for 2 years (min) before ordination. If I wasn't able, or didn't have the skills to do that, a burning desire to preside at communion would not be enough to keep me in the role.
Preaching, pastoral care and presiding at communion - no problem, and something I once believed to be my calling and was very keen to do.
Church management - meetings, property, finance, synod etc; not so much.

 

[gordonhooker]

If grape juice had not been invented how did they make wine? I do not think grape juice was invented. It is a naturally occurring thing. Every grape I have in my vineyard contains it.

It is a naturally occurring thing that turns into wine.

 

[Paidiske]

I know.
I know it is good practice and there are doubtless good reasons for that. I'm just saying that, as I see it, the practice isn't Scriptural. Apart from anything else, my denomination has some serious shortages in clergy numbers, and in those offering. I would ave thought that this was something able to be handed to a lay person, so that the body of Christ does not miss out on this sacrament, and our poor Ministers are not quite so frazzled.

I think the bigger Scriptural issue is a lack of clarity about the concept of "clergy" to start with, to be honest. A very good argument can be made that within the NT era, the idea of "clergy" and "laity" - rather than a variety of people exercising their gifts in a variety of roles, some of which have persisted and some of which have not - had not yet developed.

Although if laity were to take anything, I'd give an awful lot for someone to take on some of the admin of the role...

Believe me, I've tried. And the number of people who said that I'd be a great Minister because of my people skills, was humbling.
But being a Minister is about more than that. In the UK Methodist church, if I was accepted and went through college, I'd emerge as a probationer Minister and have to lead one or more churches for 2 years (min) before ordination. If I wasn't able, or didn't have the skills to do that, a burning desire to preside at communion would not be enough to keep me in the role.
Preaching, pastoral care and presiding at communion - no problem, and something I once believed to be my calling and was very keen to do.
Church management - meetings, property, finance, synod etc; not so much.

Hmm. What about chaplaincy?

 

[Strong in Him]

Hmm. What about chaplaincy?

Funny you should say that; others have said the same.
I can't seem to get a paid job, but an application for volunteer chaplain is being processed as we speak.

 

[Strong in Him]

It is a naturally occurring thing that turns into wine.

Does grape juice automatically become wine? I thought there was more to it than that?

 

[Paidiske]

It ferments naturally, unless you do something to prevent it, because there are yeasts on the skin of the grapes even as they grow. So, grape juice kept for any length of time after harvest, short of something like pasteurisation, will form alcohol.

Whether it's any good as wine or not is a whole other question!

 

[grasping the after wind]

And now the necessary questions. Would you drink a glass of it at that stage and consider it a decent beverage for serving with a meal? Also, how long will that juice remain as it is when first squeezed?

It is a very tasty drink that anyone would enjoy with or without food. It begins to ferment almost immediately if not sealed and refrigerated or pasteurized, but even that would not keep it from being potable and enjoyable for a few days. It remains potable but becomes less enjoyable as a drink from that point until it is fully fermented. You don't squeeze grapes, you crush them.

 

[Strong in Him]

Just as a matter of interest, the wine in John 2 came from water, not grapes.

Are we saying that Jesus actually created grapes first, squeezed them, left them for a couple of days and then gave it to the party? If not, how can anyone know that the wine produced was grape juice?

 

[grasping the after wind]

It is a naturally occurring thing that turns into wine.

Exactly so. Grapes are crushed, grape juice results , it ferments and then it becomes wine. No one invented grape juice.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Scripture doesn't say anything about alcoholic content - only that it was wine, and the best.
Anything else is an attempt - possibly by both sides - to back up their views.

Scripture weighs heavily in favor that Jesus did not make fermented wine.

6 Biblical Reasons Why Jesus Made Unfermented Wine (Grape Juice).

 

[Albion]

It is a very tasty drink that anyone would enjoy with or without food. It begins to ferment almost immediately if not sealed and refrigerated or pasteurized, but even that would not keep it from being potable and enjoyable for a few days. It remains potable but becomes less enjoyable as a drink from that point until it is fully fermented. You don't squeeze grapes, you crush them.

I hope, therefore, that you agree that the likelihood of the drink used at the Last Supper being UNFERMENTED juice is slim. It might have technically been possible so long as a number of factors all fell into place, but that is about all there is to this.

 

[FireDragon76]

It was best in quality of taste and not by the level of alcoholic content. Even wine tasters of today do not judge how good a wine is based solely on it's alcoholic content.

It's not the sole criteria, however better wines tend to have higher alcohol content and usually this is due to the fact that the grapes used are better quality. The alcohol itself does contribute to the taste. De-alcoholized wines tend to taste flat, in comparison.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's not the sole criteria, however better wines tend to have higher alcohol content and usually this is due to the fact that the grapes used are better quality. The alcohol itself does contribute to the taste. De-alcoholized wines tend to taste flat, in comparison.

No. A person says they like wine based on the taste and not how it gives them a buzz.

 

[FireDragon76]

No. A person says they like wine based on the taste and not how it gives them a buzz.

Alcohol is part of the sensory qualities of a wine, regardless of peoples motivations for drinking it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Alcohol is part of the sensory qualities of a wine, regardless of peoples motivations for drinking it.

But if they are going for a buzz, then why bother with taste. There are other ways to get a buzz with no taste. One can smoke pot or do other things to not be sober minded.

 

[Strong in Him]

Scripture weighs heavily in favor that Jesus did not make fermented wine.

6 Biblical Reasons Why Jesus Made Unfermented Wine (Grape Juice).

As I said, when Jesus turned water into wine, the source was water, not grapes.
There is NOTHING in the text to say what the alcoholic content was; only that it had been water, and was then wine.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As I said, when Jesus turned water into wine, the source was water, not grapes.
There is NOTHING in the text to say what the alcoholic content was; only that it had been water, and was then wine.

Older dictionaries say that wine can be grape juice. Even the word "liquor" was not originally an alcoholic thing. It used to mean express juice of any fruit, etc. But people today refer to this word as alcoholic because that is how we use it today. It's like the word "gay." At one time in the past, it used to just mean happy. But if you were to say that word today, people would think a different kind of thing. So you are thinking terms of modern thinking and not how that word was once used.

 

[Albion]

Older dictionaries say that wine can be grape juice. Even the word "liquor" was not originally an alcoholic thing. It used to mean express juice of any fruit, etc. But people today refer to this word as alcoholic because that is how we use it today. It's like the word "gay." At one time in the past, it used to just mean happy. But if you were to say that word today, people would think a different kind of thing. So you are thinking terms of modern thinking and not how that word was once used.

Actually, none of that matters since what was used at the Last Supper was almost certainly wine, and we commemorate/celebrate the event, as Christ instructed us to do, by using the same substances as were used at that meal.

 

[FireDragon76]

But if they are going for a buzz, then why bother with taste.

That's why there's Thunderbird and Wild Irish Rose, cheap fortified wines that are more industrial chemicals than wine. That's different from enjoying something like a Bordeaux, part of which is the alcoholic body of the wine.

There are other ways to get a buzz with no taste. One can smoke pot or do other things to not be sober minded.

Pot is a different kind of buzz. Alcohol produces a more dissociative effect (which is why in large amounts, people black out or forget what they have done). Pot is more like a psychedelic and alters perceptions.

 

[Strong in Him]

Older dictionaries say that wine can be grape juice. Even the word "liquor" was not originally an alcoholic thing. It used to mean express juice of any fruit, etc. But people today refer to this word as alcoholic because that is how we use it today. It's like the word "gay." At one time in the past, it used to just mean happy. But if you were to say that word today, people would think a different kind of thing. So you are thinking terms of modern thinking and not how that word was once used.

Seems to me you're clutching at straws.

In John 2 we are told that Jesus changed water into wine. Had it said "fruit of the vine", there may be some room for argument. But the wine did not come from grapes or a vine, but water.
That's all we are told - wine was created and drunk. There is no room to argue that it was either alcoholic or otherwise.
Wanting it to be otherwise because of a belief that "wine is not for kings", or "Jesus wouldn't have given out strong drink", is not enough. The text says wine; anything else is reading into it.