Yay! Our Church actually Changed!

[Koey]

For a very long time in our local church I and a few others have been quite uncomfortable. Thomas Welch's modern invention of grape juice was shoved down our throats each Sunday, and we wanted wine like Christ instituted.

The Churches of Christ have no creed but Christ theoretically, but in practice, they have no creed but Churches of Christ traditions, which include no tolerance for anything but immersion baptism and being a teetotaler.

So, about 6 months ago, some of us requested a choice for communion, wine for some and juice for others, so that everyone's faith could be accomodated. For a long time this decision was put off and in the end I just gave up and decided no longer to take part because of the mandatory grape juice. It just did not represent my faith.

Then, a miracle occurred. One elder who is a firm grape juicer, teetotaler and vehemently anti-alcohol, said we ought to consider the faith of others. It was put to a vote and we now accomodate the faith of others in this area.

Yahoooooo! I feel so much better now! About half of us take the wine and the other half take the grape juice. It's just so wonderful! Yay!

 

[HeyHomie]

That's an exciting development. It will never happen in my ICC congregation, but I've always thought it would be cool.

Let's face it: Christ could not have had grape juice at the last supper. It didn't exist until Dr. Welch invented it in 1860-something.

 

[Koey]

Yes, Welch's son made big bucks by introducing it at the Chicago World's Fair.

 

[Apollos1]

Hey Koey -

You said you wanted to have "wine like Christ instituted."

Which scripture/verse/passage is it that you think "instituted" wine in the Lord's supper???

I can not seem to find that.

The NT uses "fruit of the vine" as mentioned for the Lord's Supper, and uses "wine" elsewhere - and even the expression "new wine" (do you know what that is?).

Please let me know...

 

[ModestGirlsRock]

grape juice is from the "fruit of vine" so you were following scripture all along. I wonder if your elders know that there are many greek terms for english word "wine", and that it depends on how long it's been fermenting, how it was grown, etc, that determines what kind of wine it is whether alcoholic, non-alcholic, really rich in flavor, bitter, (etc on that too!). The wine not told be drunk in the old testament was talking about alcoholic wine, but a different term for wine is used in the Greek language when Jesus made water into wine. Now, I don't rememeber what those terms are, but it shouldn't take away from any credibility of what I am saying for I was told this by my own teachers, and all the Baptist ministers I've encountered have told me the same thing. In fact, there's a book on the many different kinds of wines there are. So, yes, you can have wine, but someone might want to question of how much it's been sitting out in the sun?

 

[Koey]

Hey Koey -

You said you wanted to have "wine like Christ instituted."

Which scripture/verse/passage is it that you think "instituted" wine in the Lord's supper???

I can not seem to find that.

The NT uses "fruit of the vine" as mentioned for the Lord's Supper, and uses "wine" elsewhere - and even the expression "new wine" (do you know what that is?).

Please let me know...

Some people believe that the “fruit of the vine” described in the Bible was unfermented grape juice. But this is a misunderstanding of history and science. Until pasteurization and refrigeration, fresh squeezed grape juice always fermented within a very few days. Certainly "new wine" placed in wineskins is almost totally unfermented. However, this differs from today’s processed grape juice. It has not been killed by pasteurization, and within a short time takes on that characteristic tang of alcohol production. You may have tasted that same zest when you sugared sliced peaches and left them in the refrigerator a day or so. Fresh apple cider will also begin to get tangy or “hard” within a few days.

The idea that some have of ancient peoples keeping bunches of grapes for six months from the autumn harvest to the spring Passover festival so that they could squeeze out grape juice is naïve. Not only is it a preposterous misrepresentation of ancient culture, but grapes would surely have rotted or turned to raisins by that time.

The expression "fruit of the vine" was "employed by the Jews from time immemorial for the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath” (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible).

 

[Koey]

grape juice is from the "fruit of vine" so you were following scripture all along. I wonder if your elders know that there are many greek terms for english word "wine", and that it depends on how long it's been fermenting, how it was grown, etc, that determines what kind of wine it is whether alcoholic, non-alcholic, really rich in flavor, bitter, (etc on that too!). The wine not told be drunk in the old testament was talking about alcoholic wine, but a different term for wine is used in the Greek language when Jesus made water into wine. Now, I don't rememeber what those terms are, but it shouldn't take away from any credibility of what I am saying for I was told this by my own teachers, and all the Baptist ministers I've encountered have told me the same thing. In fact, there's a book on the many different kinds of wines there are. So, yes, you can have wine, but someone might want to question of how much it's been sitting out in the sun?

Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon: oinos, a fermented beverage made from the juice of grapes - 'wine.'​

Friberg Greek Lexicon: wine; lit. of the juice of grapes usu. fermented​

Grape juice was not used for communion until Tommy Welch applied pasteurization to grape juice to stop the fermentation process (Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_alcohol).​

 

[Splayd]

That's great news Koey. These issues simply shouldn't be divisive, so the fact that your congregation has found a way to accomodate everyone without compromising is wonderful.

It's kinda funny that this thread is already heading towards a discussion about whether or not "fruit of the vine" is alcoholic or not. Regardless - I think your congregation has addressed the issue beautifully. At the most basic level it's clear that both wine and unfermented grape juice are fruit of the vine. To allow inidividuals to act on their convictions regarding the matter without judging the others is a great example.

Thanks for sharing this

 

[Koey]

That's great news Koey. These issues simply shouldn't be divisive, so the fact that your congregation has found a way to accomodate everyone without compromising is wonderful.

It's kinda funny that this thread is already heading towards a discussion about whether or not "fruit of the vine" is alcoholic or not. Regardless - I think your congregation has addressed the issue beautifully. At the most basic level it's clear that both wine and unfermented grape juice are fruit of the vine. To allow inidividuals to act on their convictions regarding the matter without judging the others is a great example.

Thanks for sharing this

Thanks for bringing this back to the topic so tactfully. Yes, there will probably always be Christians who want to insist upon Tommy Welch's grape juice as being the same that Jesus used. But, as you said, it is so good that both are now accomodated in our local church.

I hear that more and more churches are doing this too. Isn't that just fantastic!

 

[Apollos1]

Koey –
Thanks for your reply. It was disappointing to see that you did not offer ONE scripture in support of your position. I guess you know what that tellsme, huh? And instead, you chose rather to support your position with “reasoning” from science and history. So let’s look at that…
You said - Some people believe that the “fruit of the vine” described in the Bible was unfermented grape juice. But this is a misunderstanding of history and science. Until pasteurization and refrigeration, fresh squeezed grape juice always fermented within a very few days.
So would you say that if the grapes were freshly squeezed or crushed within, say 48 - 72 hours or less, there would be no alcoholic content as yet, correct? How would this be a misunderstanding of science as I believe that “fruit of the vine” is the unfermented juice of the grape?
You said - Certainly "new wine" placed in wineskins is almost totally unfermented.
I would say so – if any at all.
You said - However, this differs from today’s processed grape juice. It has not been killed by pasteurization, and within a short time takes on that characteristic tang of alcohol production.
Any grape juice, today or yesteryear, will ferment. How fast depends upon many factors. I do not believe we have any disagreement on this point.

You said - The idea that some have of ancient peoples keeping bunches of grapes for six months from the autumn harvest to the spring Passover festival so that they could squeeze out grape juice is naïve. Not only is it a preposterous misrepresentation of ancient culture, but grapes would surely have rotted or turned to raisins by that time.
Your comment here presumes an “autumn harvest” only. Given the varied growing regions (Sharon, Galilee, Judean Hills, and the Golan Heights), grapes are grown virtually year around in Israel. Did your sources of ancient culture mention this?
Summary so far: No scripture has been given at this point to sustain any position about whether or not the “fruit of the vine” used in the Lord’s supper was fermented. Grape juice can exist with or without fermentation and to believe such does not violate any any understandings of science. Nothing of historical import was given in support any position.
--------------
Word study – Let’s look at how the Bible uses words in relation to WINE, what they mean, and what we can learn from them…
OT:
Hebrew – yayin
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); [also]
by implication intoxication: - banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].

Used in Gen. 9:21, Lev. 10:9, as well as Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Ecc., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekeiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, and others.

The Israelites knew what wine was.
------------
Hebrew - tiyrosh
New wine - in the sense of expulsion; must or fresh grape juice (as just squeezed out); by implication (rarely) fermented wine: - (new, sweet) wine.

Used in Neh. 13:5,12, Prov. 3:10, Isa. 24:7, Hosea 9:2, Joel 1:10, Hag. 1:11, Zec. 9:17,and others.

This expression “new wine” is used in many passages of the OT. Welch did not invent grape juice without alcohol content.
-------------
Hebrew - shêkâr
“Strong drink” - an intoxicant, that is, intensely alcoholic liquor: - strong drink, + drunkard, strong wine. See Lev. 10:9, Num. 6:3 and others. Origin of the Greek word “sikera” below.
-------------
NT:
Greek -sikera
Of Hebrew origin; an intoxicant, that is, intensely fermented liquor: - strong drink.
See only at Luke 1:15.
Read also Luke 5:38&39.
-------------
Greek - gleukos
…sweet wine, that is, (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine [but not in NT writings]: - new wine.
See Acts 2:13.
-----------------
BUT…

None of the above words, their roots, or derivations are used in connection with the “instituting” of the Lord’s supper or its performance! In reference to the “Lord’s Supper”, we find this expression used:

“…fruit of the vine…” as found in Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25, and Luke 22:18.

So what does the use of this particular expression mean?

First, no implication can be made to “fruit of the vine” from any of the previous “wine” words. There is no connection.

Second, we know that Jesus uses a term never before used in scripture to convey the thought of what they were drinking.

“I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom…”

If we can figure out what “fruit of the vine” is, we can know what they were drinking. At this point, anyone who can see through a ladder realizes that “fruit of the vine” means grapes, and because they were drinking it, we can know it was grape juice !

There were many earlier words that could have been used to implicate an alcoholic drink was being used in the Supper, but none of them were used by Jesus. History and science can’t change the meaning of these 4 simple words – “fruit of the vine”. All the rationalization you can muster can not get any “fermentation” into these words.

Third, because His supper was instituted after the PASSOVER supper, we know NO leavening (ei. fermentation) of any kind was allowed for the seven days of the feast – see Exodus 12 and compare with Leviticus 2. Both the bread and the drink had to be in harmony with this Passover requirement.

Now Koey, if you still disagree, please tell me why. Otherwise admit you see what the scriptures teach and stop your unauthorized practice of using alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper.

I look forward to your response.

 

[crawfish]

I really wasn't sure as to this issue, so I did some study. I come to the same conclusion as Apollos1; the last supper was with unfermented wine.

As to what we should take from this - it was the yeast that was prohibited during this time, not some statement against alcohol itself, which can be produced through other processes. Considering that today's grape juice resembles the original 'fruit of the vine" less than the fermented wine of the time (just check the ingredients), I'm not sure we're following the letter of the law any closer by using Welch's.

But, then again, I believe that in this case it's the spirit that is important. If I was somewhere where grape juice was unavailable I would have no problem substituting alcoholic wine.

And, for the record, I'm almost certain that the wine that Jesus made from water WAS alcoholic wine. The word "oinos" refers to both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wines; however, when used in the latter term, it typically described wine that was intended to become fermented, NOT wine that was intended to be consumed beforehand.

 

[Koey]

This post is not about arguing over wine or grape juice, but about choice. I don't believe your argument. It is not my faith. Would YOUR church change to accomodate MY FAITH?

 

[Apollos1]

Koey –

I will have a few things to say about you below when I am talking to Slayd, but for now I want to deal with your last comment…

Koey said - This post is not about arguing over wine or grape juice, but about choice. I don't believe your argument. It is not my faith. Would YOUR church change to accomodate MY FAITH?

YOUR faith? Your faith in what? Romans 10:17 says faith comes from God’s word. As yet you haven’t given ONE – not ONE scripture to support your alcoholic view of “fruit of the vine”. WHERE IS the SCRIPTURE???

Whatever your original intent, this discussion is no longer about YOU! It is about what GOD WANTS and what GOD AUTHORIZED for use in the Lord’s supper! The choice is not up to you - it is God's CHOICE !!!

Let me ask you Koey – WHAT have YOU done to accommodate the faith of those in the congregation where you attend? The way I see it all you have done is complain and throw a tantrum! You have nothing to support your position on alcoholic wine, yet you expect everyone to change for you!

Grow up! And then repent! I have seen attitudes like yours before, it stinks, and it needs to change!

 

[Apollos1]

Slayd –

I want to tell you that I very much appreciate your attitude. You have one of the best attitudes that I pick up on here at the Forums. But I must question your thinking – do you ever think critically about what other people are saying?

I don’t mean to pick on you, but I do not believe you are thinking through what Koey is saying and I don’t think you have realized what his attitude is. Please examine that attitude with me, along with some of his comments. When I am done, if you disagree, let me know.

Attitude 101:
1.)
Koey said - Thomas Welch's modern invention of grape juice was shoved down our throats each Sunday, and we wanted wine like Christ instituted.

Do you really think this was “shoved” down his throat? I believe this exaggeration only displays his discontent because he was not getting what he wanted. He follows this complaint with his justification for saying it… “we wanted wine” like Christ instituted, yet Koey can not produce ONE scripture for such!

The “tantrum” … I just gave up and decided no longer to take part because of the mandatory grape juice. It just did not represent my faith.

Are you getting this? Getting his wine became more important to him that communing with the Lord! Koey is throwing a tantrum because he was not getting his way. I bet he stuck out his bottom lip and folded his arms across his chest. Koey doesn’t think “grape juice” is wrong in the Lord’s Supper – he just wants an alcoholic wine. Koey has no scripture but wants what he wants!
Slayd, how can you side with this????

2.)
Koey said – The Churches of Christ have no creed but Christ theoretically, but in practice, they have no creed but Churches of Christ traditions, which include no tolerance for anything but immersion baptism and being a teetotaler.

More complaints – this time about immersion and alcohol abstention. How long will it be before Koey wants to be “accommodated” in the area of baptism? As for coC “traditions”, allow me to refer you and him to 2 Thes. 3:15. Keep in mind because inspired teachers are long gone we get our “traditions” come from the WORD today!

3.)
Koey said - Some people believe that the “fruit of the vine” described in the Bible was unfermented grape juice. But this is a misunderstanding of history and science.

Here Koey attempts to claim both history and science is on his side in this discussion. I showed that it isn’t! But look at the total lack of substance he offered in support of his hollow claim….

A. Scientific – I guess he thinks that his mention of “pasteurization” proves that most, if not all, grape juice in the NT was fermented as opposed to today. It proves nothing of the sort. Grape “juice” without alcohol content existed in NT times - “sugared peaches” and “hard cider” not withstanding. So much for the “science” he presented.

B. History – Koey said - The idea that some have of ancient peoples keeping bunches of grapes for six months from the autumn harvest to the spring Passover festival so that they could squeeze out grape juice is naïve. Not only is it a preposterous misrepresentation of ancient culture, but grapes would surely have rotted or turned to raisins by that time.

This is but another exaggeration to bolster a point that Koey was misinformed on. Grapes are produced virtually year around in Israel, as they are in other countries such as Italy and France. So much for the “history” lesson.

It was bad enough Koey attempted to claim the “intellectual” high ground with nothing to offer, but Koey’s attitude jumped off the page in his last reply…

4.)
Koey said - This post is not about arguing over wine or grape juice, but about choice. I don't believe your argument. It is not my faith. Would YOUR church change to accommodate MY FAITH?

It is in this statement Koey shows what he is all about – HIMSELF! It is all ME-ME-ME ! He is saying change things for ME! He has no scripture, no science, and no history on his side, but he wants HIS way. And if he doesn’t get his way, he won’t “play”.

Slayd……….. it this type of behavior you want to support??? You better do some soul searching if it is.

In your amenable response to Koey you said…

Slayd - These issues simply shouldn't be divisive, so the fact that your congregation has found a way to accommodate everyone without compromising is wonderful.

It is the attitudes and wants of men that create “issues” and cause division. Koey’s attitude – which put simply, stinks – is causing division (see my response below about his attitude.) Because “wine” is simply not the same as “fruit of the vine”, it is GOD’s WORD that is compromised when attempts are made to accommodate everyone on such things that are not founded upon scripture!

Slayd - It's kinda funny that this thread is already heading towards a discussion about whether or not "fruit of the vine" is alcoholic or not.

Why is this odd to you? It is the logical migration of thought to find out if “wine” and “fruit of the vine” are the same AND/or if both are acceptable for use in the Lord’s Supper. At least it is to those who want to give “Bible” for all they teach and practice in religion! Koey says both items are acceptable gave NO scriptural support. I say that only “fruit of the vine” is acceptable and I gave what I believe the Bible teaches about both.

Slayd - Regardless - I think your congregation has addressed the issue beautifully.

Koey without any scriptural basis whatsoever pedantically forced his congregation to accommodate him! Where is the beauty in that Slayd?

 

[crawfish]

Koey - a question.

Is it important to you to use unleavened bread - bread without yeast - in communion? It was unleavened because of a prohibition against yeast during Passover. In a similar vein, the "fruit of the vine" taken by Christ was also devoid of yeast, and therefore, unfermented.

I'm not one who believes in a blanket prohibition against alcohol. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's pretty clear that Jesus turned water to "good wine" - referring to alcoholic wine - in Cana. If you're searching for the true spirit of the Lord's Supper, however, to take it as Jesus did, then you'll abstain from the alcoholic variety.

 

[Koey]

Koey –

I will have a few things to say about you below when I am talking to Slayd, but for now I want to deal with your last comment…

Koey said - This post is not about arguing over wine or grape juice, but about choice. I don't believe your argument. It is not my faith. Would YOUR church change to accomodate MY FAITH?

YOUR faith? Your faith in what? Romans 10:17 says faith comes from God’s word. As yet you haven’t given ONE – not ONE scripture to support your alcoholic view of “fruit of the vine”. WHERE IS the SCRIPTURE???

Whatever your original intent, this discussion is no longer about YOU! It is about what GOD WANTS and what GOD AUTHORIZED for use in the Lord’s supper! The choice is not up to you - it is God's CHOICE !!!

Let me ask you Koey – WHAT have YOU done to accommodate the faith of those in the congregation where you attend? The way I see it all you have done is complain and throw a tantrum! You have nothing to support your position on alcoholic wine, yet you expect everyone to change for you!

Grow up! And then repent! I have seen attitudes like yours before, it stinks, and it needs to change!

I find your post VERY offensive! You took the words "my faith" in a completely selfish direction. I could say that about "your" faith too. That is not the point. The point is that you are shoving YOUR faith down my throat. That is NOT my faith at all. I don't believe your anti-alcohol arguments. I believe that they are Pharisaism and NOT Christianity.

Now the point of this whole exercise is to accomodate each other's faith without pushing and shoving, but if YOU push, I will push back, and that just defeats the whole exercise doesn't it.

My dream is to see immersionists and sprinklers, rockers and hymn-lovers, grape-juicers and winebibbers, leavened and unleavened breaders united in faith. And by the way unity is in the bondage of peace (Eph 4:3), not uniformity of faith. So, I dream that YOU and I can be under the same roof, without this offensive nonsense you just spouted.

 

[Koey]

Koey - a question.

Is it important to you to use unleavened bread - bread without yeast - in communion? It was unleavened because of a prohibition against yeast during Passover. In a similar vein, the "fruit of the vine" taken by Christ was also devoid of yeast, and therefore, unfermented.

I'm not one who believes in a blanket prohibition against alcohol. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's pretty clear that Jesus turned water to "good wine" - referring to alcoholic wine - in Cana. If you're searching for the true spirit of the Lord's Supper, however, to take it as Jesus did, then you'll abstain from the alcoholic variety.

I personally prefer unleavened bread, because it was an early Passover, but realize that in the case of the bread, Paul's later instructions merely use the word without adjective, and thus bread is what is mandated, not the leavening or not. Catholics prefer unleavened, but allow leavened, Orthodox only prefer leavened and have a good argument on their side too. Protestants are all over the map on that one.

 

[crawfish]

I personally prefer unleavened bread, because it was an early Passover, but realize that in the case of the bread, Paul's later instructions merely use the word without adjective, and thus bread is what is mandated, not the leavening or not. Catholics prefer unleavened, but allow leavened, Orthodox only prefer leavened and have a good argument on their side too. Protestants are all over the map on that one.

Oh, I agree with you for the most part. I'm not a big supporter of the "implied law" from scripture. For instance, the command is "do this in remembrance of me", referring to the cup. The non-alcoholic fruit of the vine is implied later, but separate from the command. I cannot discern of the (lack of) yeast content is the important part or just a coincidence because of when the last supper took place, and it certainly doesn't clear that up later in scripture - only the original command is re-enforced.

However, if your goal is to emulate Christ in this and experience it as He did, there is no question you'd need to choose the non-alcoholic option. That was my point.

 

[Apollos1]

To Koey –

Koey said - I find your post VERY offensive! You took the words "my faith" in a completely selfish direction. I could say that about "your" faith too. That is not the point. The point is that you are shoving YOUR faith down my throat. That is NOT my faith at all. I don't believe your anti-alcohol arguments. I believe that they are Pharisaism and NOT Christianity.

I am offended by your attitude, lack of scripture, and lack of intellectual support for your “faith”. You shoved this down the throats of others in your church, when in fact, you have NO BASIS to believe it. You have not presented any information to support your beliefs.

The direction I took with your “my faith” comment was supported by previous comments from your posts as well as the total lack of evidence not given for what you say you believe. The direction I took is justified – and supported!

If I have scripture and reason for my beliefs about “fruit of the vine” – and I do – then I am not “shoving” anything down YOUR throat. God is trying to tell you something – through His word. You are not listening. YOU are too busy acting childish and trying to have your way with the vino!

In short, your complaints above are the same arguments denominationalists offer when they refuse the plain truth of the gospel. “I don’t believe that!” “You are a Pharisee because you want me to BELIEVE the Bible and OBEY something.” Well boo-hoo for you Koey.

Koey complained - Now the point of this whole exercise is to accomodate each other's faith without pushing and shoving, but if YOU push, I will push back, and that just defeats the whole exercise doesn't it.
No Koey, I took this thread away from you. The above is what YOU want this thread to be about. I made this thread into a “give BOOK, CHAPTER, and VERSE” for all you teach and practice in relgion discussion.

You have NO book, chapter, and verse for what YOU want to practice. You are yet to offer even ONE scripture in support of what YOU want. This thread is no longer about what YOU want – it is now about what GOD WANTS !!! Colossians 3:17, 2 John 9.

Koey said - My dream is to see immersionists and sprinklers, rockers and hymn-lovers, grape-juicers and winebibbers, leavened and unleavened breaders united in faith. And by the way unity is in the bondage of peace (Eph 4:3), not uniformity of faith. So, I dream that YOU and I can be under the same roof, without this offensive nonsense you just spouted.

Wow – you actually used a scripture although it is slightly out of context. Further in that chapter Paul says to “speak the truth in love…”. You can not keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace… without speaking the TRUTH! (Remember John 4:23-24 above.)

You can not have unity in diversity! Unless we agree upon the TRUTH – which is God’s word, there will never be unity and God will not accept less. So for all of your desires above, I suggest you take the path that God tells us will unite man with man, God with man, and maintain the unity of the Spirit… TRUTH! When we are united with God, then and only then could we be united with each other!

Because you and I are NOT united in thought or upon truth, I await your scriptural rebuttal of what I have offered above in reference to the “fruit of the vine” so that you and I may be united in TRUTH.

 

[Koey]

I can't be bothered having an argument about alcohol with you, nor supporting it scripturally. I've done that on other posts ad nauseum. My issue here is tolerance, not arguing over alcohol. Your attitude is what turns Christians and non-Christians alike off of the Church. It is highly offensive and judgmentalism in the extreme!