Grape Juice

[George]

Why do some churches insist on using grape juice for communion when it was wine that was at the Last Supper?

 

[psalms 91]

I think a lot of it has to do with people who have trouble with alcohol and of course here it is not acceptable to give children wine

 

[Josiah]

Why do some churches insist on using grape juice for communion when it was wine that was at the Last Supper?

ANTI-BOOZE is a sub movement in America, especially in fundamentalist/evangelical circles. Since those Christians think little of Communion, such a substitution matters not at all.


My OWN view is that obviously Jesus used wine (there was no grape juice until very modern times)... and obviously GOD has no problem with consuming wine (He even REQUIRED it in the Passover meal) and I just see no reason to change that. I admit the wine and bread in the Holy Sacrament typically lack something.... foodies would probably like to replace the bread with some fine cheese (I'd go for that) and my brother would like to replace both with just a big Reese's Peanut Butter Cup (he told me that!) but Jesus established the Sacrament and it seems from things at the Passover Meal (no cheese, no peanut butter cups - and no grape juice or leavened bread). Does using little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread and tiny plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice invalidate the Sacrament? IMO, no... but it is baseless. Does subsituting Reese's Peanut Butter Cups for the bread and wine cuz it is preferred invalidate it? Well.... but such comes from the identical basis for substuting grape juice - "I just don't like how Jesus set this up, I over-rule Jesus, MY feeling is what matters." Now, if one is instructed by their doc to not consume alcohol, then maybe grape juice or simply water it down (actually, the ancient custom anyway).



Just my $0.01


Josiah



.

 

[tango]

I guess people who believe that all alcohol is sinful, arguing that references to "wine" in Scripture were referring to grape juice, would naturally avoid fermented wine. It's not an argument I consider to have merit but obviously others do.

Then there's the obsession with prohibiting alcohol in the US. Frankly it's ridiculous to claim it will harm teenagers to have a small sip of wine - teenagers across continental Europe drink (legally and illegally) from much younger ages than 21. But then it seems the US learned very little from the Prohibition.

The only thing I can think that really justifies using something non-alcoholic comes from hearsay, so I don't know for sure whether it's true. That relates to recovering alcoholics taking a sip of wine - I've heard stories of former alcoholics who had managed to kick the habit and stay dry, only to relapse after taking wine for communion. It sounds at least plausible to me, but I don't know whether it's truth or rumor.

For myself I don't have a problem either way - I regard the liquid, whatever it is, as being symbolic of Christ's blood so the exact nature of it becomes less important than the symbolism of it.

 

[Josiah]

I guess people who believe that all alcohol is sinful, arguing that references to "wine" in Scripture were referring to grape juice, would naturally avoid fermented wine. It's not an argument I consider to have merit but obviously others do.

Here's my understanding....

Grape juice is loaded with sugar. Without preservatives or refrigeration, this causes the juice to very quickly spoil. It lasts for a VERY short time. And since grapes are only harvested a few weeks of the year, grape juice would only be available during that time, and for a very short time once made.

But as everyone knows who have eaten grapes, they are covered by a white powder. That's yeast. If the grapes are smashed without carefully washing them, then the yeast is mixed with the grape juice. Yeast + sugar = alcohol. The alcohol naturally preserves the juice so that in the right conditions, it can last months - even years, making the drink available year around. Important because water was often toxic; people tried to avoid it.

Why would people carefully wash off the yeast, and thus insure that their product would very soon spoil and become worthless and would thus would be available for only a very sort time? Once preservatives were invented.... and later refrigeration, that was an option, but not in ancient times. Washing off the grapes just insured a nearly worthless product.


And remember this: God REQUIRED all (including children) to drink from several cups of WINE as a part of the Passover Meal. Note, the Passover happened in the Spring, not in the Fall when grapes are harvested. And God COMMANDS this consumption. For ALL in the family. Sure, it was not much drink, but we're not discussing quantity, we're discussing the product (and I'm addressing an above point that those under the age of X are forbidden by God to consume wine but can consume non-existent grape juice).


But here's the point: If Communion doesn't matter because it's just a symbol, then it doesn't matter whether it's wine or grape juice or Coka Cola.... it doesn't matter if it's bread or potato chips or a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.






.

 

[tango]

I'm minded to agree with your views on references to wine in Scripture meaning fermented grape juice rather than unfermented. It's just that the people who insist that the term referred to unfermented grape juice would naturally have a reason to resist using wine as we currently understand it.

I don't know that I'd necessarily resist the notion that "fermented grape juice" had a lower alcohol content than some of today's red wines, although that's from a perspective of not particularly looking into it in any great detail.

As for the symbolism, if the only thing that was available was a Reese's I wouldn't necessarily see a problem with using it. The idea of "breaking bread" with someone doesn't have to refer to literally damaging a loaf - it can be regarded as enjoying food and fellowship. At the Last Supper the reference to Jesus "breaking bread" presumably referred to literally tearing a loaf apart but I'm not sure I'd be too quick to regard it as an explicit requirement that it must be bread. Some churches use a literal loaf of bread, others use wafers. If we can regard a perfectly formed round wafer as being an acceptable alternative to "breaking bread", why not a perfectly formed round chocolate with a peanut butter filling?

To be clear, I'm not saying we can be frivolous with the concept of communion. We certainly shouldn't be handing our confectionary as if taking communion were as trivial as eating our Halloween candy. But if we don't have bread available and we take communion with due reverence, is there any reason why we shouldn't substitute whatever is available? Or can we only commemorate the sacrifice Jesus made if we happen to have the exact ingredients available?

 

[Albion]

At the Last Supper the reference to Jesus "breaking bread" presumably referred to literally tearing a loaf apart but I'm not sure I'd be too quick to regard it as an explicit requirement that it must be bread.

On the contrary, it more likely refers to literally breaking apart some unleavened bread. It would only be leavened bread that would be torn apart rather than broken.

Some churches use a literal loaf of bread, others use wafers. If we can regard a perfectly formed round wafer as being an acceptable alternative to "breaking bread", why not a perfectly formed round chocolate with a peanut butter filling?

It's not "an acceptable alternative to 'breaking bread.'" It's the closest thing to it--both in the fact that it is unleavened and also because it is literally broken by the officiant during the preparation for distributing the bread to the people.

But if we don't have bread available and we take communion with due reverence, is there any reason why we shouldn't substitute whatever is available?

Sure. The Lord said to do it this way, so the idea of doing it a different way should immediately be recognized as highly questionable.

Or can we only commemorate the sacrifice Jesus made if we happen to have the exact ingredients available?

No, we could sing hymns about it and hear a sermon commemorating the sacrifice Jesus made. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

However, the form of commemoration that we are speaking of here--the sacrament of the altar--is a particular form of commemoration.

 

[JRT]

Josiah --- excellent post!!! I should add that at that time wine was generally fermented to the maximum of around 16%. At this point the alcohol concentration actually kills the yeast and prevents further fermentation. This is what was referred to as "strong drink". Distillation was not known till centuries later. However it was usually drunk cut with water to bring down the alcohol concentration to the range of 4% to 8%. It was consumed mainly by the well to do and only on special occasions, like weddings or Passover, by the poor. Water quality was generally quite poor so the poor usually brewed a weak beer to make it palatable. As a side comment, in the Mediterranean world wine from the Levant was considered to be "plonk".

 

[tango]

On the contrary, it more likely refers to literally breaking apart some unleavened bread. It would only be leavened bread that would be torn apart rather than broken.

OK, so literally breaking apart some unleavened bread. My point was to raise the question of whether the specific thing Jesus did must be copied exactly to be valid today or whether it's more about the symbolism than the exact materials used.

It's not "an acceptable alternative to 'breaking bread.'" It's the closest thing to it--both in the fact that it is unleavened and also because it is literally broken by the officiant during the preparation for distributing the bread to the people.

Except that perfectly formed round wafers handed out in their perfectly round state aren't broken by anyone.

Sure. The Lord said to do it this way, so the idea of doing it a different way should immediately be recognized as highly questionable.

In which case we need to ask what else must be copied exactly. Is the number of people around the table something we need to imitate precisely as well? What if we don't have fermented wine available and only have regular grape juice? What if the wine we have on hand doesn't quite match what Jesus used? At what point do we accept that something is close enough for the purpose?

No, we could sing hymns about it and hear a sermon commemorating the sacrifice Jesus made. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

However, the form of commemoration that we are speaking of here--the sacrament of the altar--is a particular form of commemoration.

Does this mean you believe that churches that use regular bread and tear it apart are, as you put it earlier, "highly questionable"? Would you regard communion as being invalid if the liquid served didn't have the same amount of alcohol in it as what we can imagine Jesus would have used? Would you say someone who struggled with alcoholism should simply be excluded from communion forever, if they couldn't cope with a small amount of alcohol? At what point would you argue things have to exactly match what Jesus did, and at what point would you accept that it's about, as Jesus put it, "remembrance of me"?

 

[Albion]

OK, so literally breaking apart some unleavened bread. My point was to raise the question of whether the specific thing Jesus did must be copied exactly to be valid today or whether it's more about the symbolism than the exact materials used.

Well, you attempted to make that point using an invalid example.

Except that perfectly formed round wafers handed out in their perfectly round state aren't broken by anyone.

Yes, they are. I referred to that fact in the preceding post.

In which case we need to ask what else must be copied exactly.

Well, it would be none of those meaningless incidentals that you tacked onto your scenario, such as the host being "perfectly round," handing them out, where the people are seated, how many showed up for the service, and etc.

No one is arguing that all these things are essentials of a valid Eucharist when the subject of wine vs grape juice comes up for debate.

Does this mean you believe that churches that use regular bread and tear it apart are, as you put it earlier, "highly questionable"?

I did not say that it would.

I said that to make an issue out of some wildly hypothetical thing such as your "round chocolate with a peanut butter filling" would be highly questionable (to put it mildly).

Would you regard communion as being invalid if the liquid served didn't have the same amount of alcohol in it as what we can imagine Jesus would have used?

We do not know the alcoholic content of the wine Christ used, so this obviously cannot be an issue.

Would you say someone who struggled with alcoholism should simply be excluded from communion forever, if they couldn't cope with a small amount of alcohol?

I think that is speculation more than fact. Churches do, however, make provision for people who say their alcoholism keeps them from having any wine at all touch their lips, about which I have no opinion. But if there are such people, it certainly is not a green light for everyone else to be given grape juice, chocolate, or peanut butter along with this one problem parishioner.

At what point would you argue things have to exactly match what Jesus did, and at what point would you accept that it's about, as Jesus put it, "remembrance of me"?

The church's policy is to use the same elements as Christ used--bread and wine.

 

[tango]

Well, you attempted to make that point using an invalid example.

The precise detail doesn't really make a difference to the underlying point.

Yes, they are. I referred to that fact in the preceding post.

Perhaps in some churches. I've been to churches that handed out perfectly formed wafers and didn't break them.

Well, it would be none of those meaningless incidentals that you tacked onto your scenario, such as the host being "perfectly round," handing them out, where the people are seated, how many showed up for the service, and etc.

It doesn't work to argue it's a "meaningless incidental", given the discussion rather hinges on whether some specific details are critical or incidental.

No one is arguing that all these things are essentials of a valid Eucharist when the subject of wine vs grape juice comes up for debate.

I think if people insist that Jesus using fermented grape juice means that any communion we host must use fermented grape juice it's entirely appropriate to ask what details should be regarded as crucial and what details may be regarded as incidental. Whether it happens to crop up in any given discussion isn't really the point.

I did not say that it would.

Hence me asking the question. If it's "highly questionable" to vary one aspect of what Jesus did, what aspects may be varied and what aspects may not be varied? If theology depends on getting the right things correct we need to be able to figure out which details are critical and which details are subject to variation, and why each detail falls into which category.

I said that to make an issue out of some wildly hypothetical thing such as your "round chocolate with a peanut butter filling" would be highly questionable (to put it mildly).

Restating the same assertion doesn't provide any justification or rationale for why you believe something to be so.

We do not know the alcoholic content of the wine Christ used, so this obviously cannot be an issue.

So how much alcohol should be in the wine that we use? If it's important that it is wine (i.e. fermented), is it OK to use wine that's only very slightly fermented (maybe 0.5% alcohol) or does it have to be full-strength wine (whatever "full strength" might mean)?

I think that is speculation more than fact. Churches do, however, make provision for people who say their alcoholism keeps them from having any wine at all touch their lips, about which I have no opinion. But if there are such people, it certainly is not a green light for everyone else to be given grape juice, chocolate, or peanut butter along with this one problem parishioner.

So what of people who don't drink alcohol, based on anything from personal preference to extremely strict requirements relating to their employment? At what point do we exclude people and at what point do we simply serve grape juice to everyone? Is there a list of acceptable circumstances under which people may take unfermented juice and it still represent the blood of Jesus?

The church's policy is to use the same elements as Christ used--bread and wine.

Some churches may have this policy. Others clearly don't, hence the discussion in the first place.

 

[Albion]

The precise detail doesn't really make a difference to the underlying point.

What's the "underlying point," then--there are no requirements when it comes to sacraments or worship... just do whatever you want?

Perhaps in some churches. I've been to churches that handed out perfectly formed wafers and didn't break them.

You're way out of your area of expertise now and are just talking in order to have the last word. I guess I should have explained your mistake to you at the time, but I didn't anticipate that you'd hold onto it, come what may, and I also thought that we should be getting back to the actual topic here--wine vs grape juice.

I think if people insist that Jesus using fermented grape juice means that any communion we host must use fermented grape juice it's entirely appropriate to ask what details should be regarded as crucial and what details may be regarded as incidental.

Already asked and answered..

 

[Josiah]

Again, I would not dogmatically insist on WINE and unleavened bread..... Although undeniably, those are the elements Christ instituted.

For the past century or so, it has been possible to offer grape juice instead of wine, and a tiny percentage of churches now regularly do that; others offer such for those who (for valid reasons) cannot consume ANY amount of alcohol (although the more traditional, and IMO valid, approach is to dilute the wine).

If what Jesus instituted doesn't matter, then why does it matter what is used? Where does this "I want to substitute something I like better" end? Why not Coka Cola? Why not potato chips? Why not coffee and donuts? If what Jesus instituted doesn't matter, then why does it matter what is substituted? Why is leavened bread okay but not donuts or chocolate chip cookies? Why is grape juice okay but not Starbucks Frappucinno? If what Jesus instituted doesn't matter, then why does it matter what is used?

Seems to ME this is stepping down a wrong path. But again, if Communion really doesn't matter, then I suppose what is used in it doesn't matter, who institutes it doesn't matter, who receives it doesn't matter.


A blessed Easter Season to all...


Josiah




.