Lord's Supper Questions

[Backseat Radio]

Here's two theological questions for you all on commemorating the Lord's Supper...

Biblically would there be anything wrong with using white grape juice for communion?

Would there be anything wrong with using the juice of a fruit that grows on vines besides grapes?

[Melody]

hmmm, interesting.  

Since the blood is represented by the "wine" I would think that for our own human mind frame a dark juice would be more conducive.  I don't see why it would have to be grapes but I'm not sure of the significance for grapes over let's say, blackberries; besides the factor of commonality of grape vineyards.

While I truly believe it is about the heart and an intimate thing w/ God, I also think there is an aspect of our human frame that is taken into consideration when God says what He does.  It's not that it has to be so technical but that we are human and really do need many things simplified.

[Backseat Radio]

Its something my family has been discussing a bit here lately.  The only thing we can see is that dark grape juice/wine would maybe be a better representation of blood than white grape juice would be.

[Melody]

we had white grape juice at communion.  The church carpet is light.

[jfrog]

personally i like the idea of it being wine.  i mean if i want communion i want it the way the apostles did it right?  jkjk

i really do like the idea of it being wine, but i think such a practice in todays culture could have to great a negative impact on ex-alcoholics.

With that being said, I think the most important part of communion is not all the little details but instead the experience it leaves us with.  It's not about getting every detail exactly right, but it's about keeping the spirit of what communion should be about.  It should be about Christ first and foremost and not whether its wine or juice, grape juice or another juice, or even wether it's dark or light colored juice.  It should be about one another and the significance of everyone being together and being a part of the life that is in Christ.

I'm a sinner though and I've never once had communion.  But that's what I think about it.

[mini]

Keep in mind that the "wine" used was a mixture: anywhere from 1 part water to 1 part wine upwards to 20 parts water to 1 part wine.  It was actually against the law to drink straight wine.  In some cultures drinking straight wine was a offense punishable by death.

Our grape juice is about the same as the "wine" mentioned in the bible.

[jfrog]

Where do you find it in the law that they couldn't drink straight wine?

And to say that their wine could not get them drunk is just plain wrong.

Ephesians 5:18  Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

And if you can get drunk on it, then I can't imagine it being as heavily dilluted as you are saying.  I would love to see anyone get drunk on something that is 1 part wine and 20 parts water.  I imagine if they could before they got sick from chugging so much of anything then it would be a miracle.  And make no mistake it would have to be chugged or they would probably be getting the alcohol far to slowly to ever get drunk.

A 1-1 wine-water mix of todays wine with equal alcohol content of a beer would actually be 10 oz instead of 12 oz.  So even if their wine was dilluted more than that it still probably contained as much alcohol as 1/2 or 1/4 of a beer of today.

The bottom line is: the wine of the bible was alcoholic and could get one drunk.  That alone is much different than our grape juice.

[eager4TRUTH]

For the life of me I just can't understand why people ask such questions on here as this and others.  If people would but study they could gain the enlightment on their own to give to others.  Read Acts 2:13 Gal.1:6-10; 3:1; Rev.22:19 just a few scripts to show a point.  ask any wine maker grapes make their own wine that is 12 to 14% alcohol and if it doesn't contain at least that amount of alcohol its not recognized as a wine.  If we look at all the places that wine is said to make a person drunk you bet it contained more than 1 to 3% alcohol.   Call any winery as Mogan David, Gallo, Swiss Colony or any other they will tell you grapes are the only thing which makes its own fermentation which is PURE nothing needs to be added.  Now Christ Blood was PURE.   UNLEAVENED BREAD This is the only substance to be used to represent the Lords Body.  Unlevened bread has nothing added, no yeast, no soda, nor baking powder.   Grape juice will sour, it will not ferment.  All this bull about a drunk (alcoholic) can't drink wine at the Lords Supper is pure ludicrous.  That person has just denied the Lord he said SAVED him, as well as saying God was not able to keep him from that which He just saved him from.  When God heals or in other words saves us from our sins it is for sure God is able keep us.  That person is really saying that he was never really SAVED or healed to start with.  I was a DRUNK and I do take wine at communion.  Absolutely unequivocally GRAPE WINE IS TO BE USED and NOTHING ELSE!  Just as UNLEAVENED BREAD!
you might read (fermentation by William Patton) I don't know it might make things worse for you.  Read it with care.  Truth comes by the Word of God through the Spirit, as we are to be washed by the water of the Word.  I know the next question.  What if I was on an Island where there were no grapes to make wine, you wouldn't do communion, because you COULDN'T.  Gods word says as often as ye do it.  This gives the person the option to do it a lot or a liitle, even to once a day, week, month, year or even every five years or etc. 

It is like this If I happened to be on the same Island and all churches of the islnd were Hindu, Zin, Budda, Witchcratf and Catholic or Muslum.  Which do I go to?  NONE.   I would live my life in front of them to be their example, not by partaking in their evil deeds.

[The Cold Water Kid]

You make some interesting points.

[Melody]

EagerforTruth, I hope that eagerness takes you to the fullest of accurate information.  If you want to get technical then let's get technical.  

It sounds logical enough but I automatically inquire of the fact that there are at least 6 different words in the OT used for our 1 word "wine." One of which has to do with the vine paraphernalia than the drink itself so I'm not posting that one.

Strong's H3196 - yayin :  wine

Strong's H8492 - tiyrowsh : fresh or new wine, must, freshly pressed wine

Strong's H2562 - chamar (Aramaic) which also means "wine" but is connected to "freshly pressed" also.

Strong's H5435 - cobe' : drink, liquor, wine

Strong's H6071 - `aciyc : sweet wine, wine, pressed out juice


If they so thought to have FIVE different words for wine, why is it to be assumed that wine=how we think of wine today?  And if not, then were there different degrees of alcholic levels in which after a certain point, some did not drink because of its intensity?

Grape juice, being sealed, will most certainly produce wine.  Actually once, years ago, when my kids had a constant supply of Juicy Juice, I managed to have one that kept being pushed back farther in the cupboard until we found it well past it's expiration.  It was not sour, it had fermented, I know the difference.  All it takes for grape juice to be fermented is a bit of yeast, which is found in the air; and time.  The yeast turns the sugar to alchohol in as little as 6 wks.  If by "sour" you mean vinegar then yes, that can happen too, depending on what was on the grapes at harvest.  Also, depending on the rain, the grapes themselves can be water fat, diluting the juice more. http://www.cheresources.com/winezz.shtml

Also, I would like to know what today's wine standard has to do with how they defined it 2000 years ago?  Seems awfully plausible that there could be some discrepancy, seeing as how it can become the newest of "wine" in as little as 6wks and stronger over time.  It would seem that you could get "juice" if it was the right time of year and that the Nazarite should be required to stay away from all grape things, even raisins!  Seems near impossible to distinquish when exactly it goes from being juice to wine. But that would explain why Jesus denied the vinegar @ the cross seeing as how He was then consecrating an offering. Num 6:2  I would ask at what time of the year was the Last supper to their harvest?

Num 6:3 he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. NKJV

And the word "juice" being used once in the KJV and only for pomegranates at that.

I have also heard that the juice was diluted back then, and certainly water & wine does not diminish it's symbolism.


I don't have the answers but I most certainly have enought questions to the black/white response you gave.  Also, while I like the PURE point to the wine idea, I would question how fermentation is equal to Christ's very fresh and only 3- days- dead fact?  Jesus' blood is not fermented, it is as fresh today as it was on the cross.  And the forgiveness of sins doesn't cause disorientation or inhibition of mind.  Nor does it jive with the fact that consecrated people are to not have anything to do w/ wine when communion is very much a time of consecration.  That seems too conflicting.


Now, just for amusement I would wonder if the very fact that fruit/grapes contains sugar that as we digest it, literally "cleans" us out is significant?  Sugar that is compromised for alchohol in wine. I could do this all day but facts,....facts is what I'd like to hear.  

[The Cold Water Kid]

   1. Matthew 9:17
      Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."
      Matthew 9:16-18 (in Context) Matthew 9 (Whole Chapter)
   2. Mark 2:22
      And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."
      Mark 2:21-23 (in Context) Mark 2 (Whole Chapter)
   3. Luke 5:37
      And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.
      Luke 5:36-38 (in Context) Luke 5 (Whole Chapter)

Apparently as "juice becomes wine" it produces gas, making the wineskin stretch. A wineskin that has already been stretched by this process can't be reused; it will burst (corks in glass bottles serve as a way for gases to escape).

If you were totally against drinking "wine" in any concentration and only drank "juice", wouldn't you want to keep your "juice" in old wineskins? That way when the "juice" started to turn to "wine" the skin would burst and you'd be spared the misfortune of accidentally drinking "wine" when you wanted "juice"?

In short, it looks like they drank wine and meant to. Notice Jesus says "And no one..."; He didn't say, "The wicked do not pour new wine into old wineskins...".

[starofjacobs]

Ok, wasn't the original question about the 'fruit of the vine'.

For children's church we have given the kids a grape and a unsalted saltine cracker. The bible said fruit of the vine...a grape qualifies and the kids can't spill it and make a mess. Also the cracker is 'unleavened'.

There were alot of good points about being sensitive to the presence of former alcoholics in our services by serving grape juice instead of fermented wine. Also, discussions on the percentage of alcohol in wine, and the practice of adding a little wine to the water. It's a simple practice to kill any protazoans in the water to prevent ameobic dysintery.

The explanation I have been given is that the disciples were practicing a passover sedar meal. The part we celebrate the bread and 'wine'. During passover it was the practice to remove all yeast, and fermented foods from the home. These were not and still are not considered kosher for pesach. Had Jesus drank fermented wine at any other time of the year, he would not have for passover.

Also, the wine symbolizes Jesus blood. The scriptures tell us that Jesus' flesh in the grave did not see 'corruption'. Fermented foods and yeast are considered 'corrupted' in that they change form during the fermentation process. Therefeore, they are not good sybology for Jesus flesh and blood.

Finally, the Pentecostal movement coincided with the temperence movement at the turn of the century. Many of the values of the Prohibitionists crossed within the early days of the movement. It is our culture as a religious people to reject alcohol consumption on moral grounds.

[The Cold Water Kid]

To be more specific, Pentecostals everywhere reject drunkenness, not necessarily alcohol consumption. I can't find "alcoholism" in the Bible; everything I have found describes it as a moral problem not a disease. Of course, everything today is a disease; Tiger Woods isn't a whoremongerer...  he has sexual addiction disease, or Nymphomania. People who repeatedly take things that don't belong to them are no longer "thieves", they suffer from Kleptomania. And on and on it goes. The same slide-of-hand was used to make homosexuality acceptable in society. For centuries it had been seen as a sin, just like the Bible says. Then in the early days of Psychology the experts declared it was not only a sin, but more importantly, it was a mental disease. After a few decades, once public perception had been changed to see it as a disease rather than a moral failure, the experts proclaimed they'd been mistaken - it was a normal, healthy, alternative lifestyle. One thing I've learned about the devil - he doesn't mind being a One Trick Pony. If something works, he'll keep using it. We need to stop the insanity and get off this crazy train.  

If the church were to ban everything that leads to excess in some people it would be the best thing that could happen for most of us. Heart disease, diabetes, obesity, tooth and gum disease, etc. would be almost unknown among Pentecostals. So why don't we?

[Melody]

we can't exactly ban food... lol  All those things can come from gluttony period, w/o "junk foods."

the problem with banning everything is that it is not in line with the Bible.

Gal 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
Gal 2:4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 

the thing about making more rules is that it demands submission of things not all people can carry, or carry yet, even if it in the long run is profitable.  Being human, it also, by weight of more rules, will conform our thinking to more legalism instead of greater faith, causing us, because we are human, to glory more in works.  The HG leads us to all truth, even within ourselves.  If gluttony is a problem for us, we get convicted.  Now we can either obey that conviction or disobey. It is very much a submission to God rather than a forced submission to man.  There is something lost when we are forced to be disciplined in an area rather than choose to discipline ourselves in that area because it is right.  

I have a friend who is a new convert and God is showing her that any dependency on anything but God is wrong, so she is working hard at overcoming habits, like drinking a bit before bed to relax.  She's not a drunkard and she could try to justify herself but the HG is convicting her and she is submitting.  THAT IS PRECIOUS!  Laying out the rule before her would literally demean the growth God is doing in her life and possibly keep her from getting to the point where things are very personally convicting rather than "letter of the law."

The Word of God is enough!  We don't need to add or take away.  It says to not be gluttonous, that our moderation be apparent, that our bodies are the temple of the HG, that bodily excercise profits little (yet it admits that it DOES profit), that God doesn't approve of umbalancedness, to seek the kingdom 1st, to feed the poor, to have temperance/self-control, to consider others that we eat around- especially at communion...  and the list goes on and on.  We hear preaching every week, we are to be praying & reading our Bibles daily.  If we aren't doing that, there is a greater problem, if we are, it Will come.

If all that doesn't convict a gluttonous unhealthy person then it is not a matter of having another rule because they aren't submitting to God's Word in the 1st place. So even the extra ban isn't going to help, but it will cause others who "appear" to not have that problem seem better and can be a stumbling block to seem to have rules down instead of authentic, transparent, desire for God w/ grace.


Gal 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 
Gal 2:17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 
Gal 2:18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 
Gal 2:19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 

Gal 3:19 What purpose then [does] the law [serve]? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.  

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.  
Gal 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us] to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  
Gal 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, [fn] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.  

Gal 5:13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not [use] liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." [fn] 

Gal 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 
Gal 5:24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 

Gal 6:4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.  
Gal 6:5 For each one shall bear his own load.

Gal 6:12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these [would] compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.  
Gal 6:13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.  


If anything  I would say that we could stand to have the Word of God preached on more diverse subjects.  Then people are better equipped to choose to submit to God or not.  Plus, it's against God's word to take the liberty of those that don't struggle with those same things.  I'm not sure how a pastor would regulate diet but it is worthless to force upon a self-controlled man that he can't have a cinnamon roll occasionally..lol

[The Cold Water Kid]

I totally agree. If the Bible doesn't specifically forbid something, who are we to add to the Word? And gluttony doesn't necessarily mean over indulgence; you can be a health nut obsessed with and always talking about what you eat and be guilty of gluttony. IMO, eating till you're ready to pop at Thanksgiving isn't gluttony; it's feasting.

[Melody]

um.. except that is what gluttony means, over eating, excessive.  A health nut is not gluttonous, they are other things but not gluttonous.

[The Cold Water Kid]

I'm not sure it's that simple. We have some rather large men in the church who are known to be big eaters, but they are counted as righteous men. It's been that way since before we were born. Maybe one of the language experts can shed some light...

[Melody]

or maybe our culture is very flawed in the subject and it has not been straigtened out in the church.

However, thus is the problem with making another rule.  Where would the line be for food ration?  And how big is too big? some people are genetically predispositioned to be bigger.  some folks have health issues that make them big/thin that are unrelated to their diet altogether. It can't be regulated, nor should the pastor have to decide "where the mountain begins" in such a subject.

I will say though that if I'm out to eat around a preacher, or really anyone and they are obviously pigging out, are big, I doubt their balance. But that doesn't mean they don't have great things to offer in other subjects.  Because honestly, we are all working on different areas in our lives and all have different strengths that God has given us.  Grace, Grace, and more Grace.