Should you partake?
- Thread starter David073
- Start date
dsanch1120
Puritan Board Freshman
If it was, say, milk, or something else, I would say no. Perhaps this is still some of the old baptist in me, but I don’t think that the alcoholic content is at the center of the validity of the sacrament, though I do think it should be wine over grape juice.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I don't think I could partake, no. Scripture requires an alcoholic drink, i.e. one which has been fermented. That is the natural conclusion of not only the description of the Last Supper but it's also a necessary theological conclusion drawn from the meaning of the sacrament.
clawrence9008
Puritan Board Freshman
Could you elaborate on the part of your statement that I have bolded? I am not sure how alcoholic content in the drink specifically relates to the pouring out of Christ's blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. (Note: I do think that wine should be used in the Lord's Supper, so we do not differ in that regard.)
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Your answer isn't internally consistent. Is it the alcohol, or the fermentation that' makes it licit to you?
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I feel like language shift has become a barrier in this discussion.
Wine: from the Latin vinum, from the Greek οἴνη (wine/vine). The Scots actually used to used "vine" to refer to the drink.
Vine. Vinegar. They all have the same root words: something that comes from a vine. I think people used to think of "wine" as "liquid that comes from grapes", "the blood of grapes", etc. We see "sour wine" and "new wine" and "old wine", but all have this idea of coming from the vine (like grapes!).
Yes, in an age without refrigeration or pasteurization, wine would have been fermented to one degree or another, but the level of fermentation didn't change it from "grape juice" into "wine" in their thinking. In today's thinking and language we have "wine" and "not wine" (grape juice) and I just haven't seen evidence to suggest those categories were how people used to think of it.
We see "wine presses", not "grape juice presses", although certainly it was "grape juice" (to use our terminology) before it was fermented.
In the cupbearer's dream in Genesis 40, we see him squeezing the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, but I doubt Pharaoh was opposed to alcohol.
I think we talk past each other when we make a sharp distinction between "wine" and "grape juice" today that didn't exist in the past. I think it would be more edifying to use the terms "wine" and "non-alcoholic wine" or "juice" and "fermented juice" so we can get past the language and get to the heart of the question.
Try this thought experiment: is Port wine appropriate for the Lord's Supper? If you said "yes, because it's wine", well, Port is a "fortified wine" which I think is far more removed from biblical wine or Lord's Supper wine, than freshly squeezed grapes would be. But because it's called "wine" it seems to get a pass, despite the addition of distilled spirits which have nothing to do with grapes.
Did Jesus use fermented juice? Almost certainly so, although it's always been interesting to me to note that the text in the Gospels and Corinthians never uses the term "wine", but "fruit of the vine" and "cup". So instead of the question being "wine" or "not wine", it becomes: is fermentation essential to the element? I don't believe so, even as I disagree with the abstinence movement that initiated the move away from it.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone in the past saying that squeezing your grapes into a cup before the Supper was inappropriate or a violation because it hadn't had time to ferment and become "wine". I'm not aware of anyone who argued for a minimum period of fermentation.
Regardless, I'd urge caution about using today's terminology and categories to read imagined distinctions into the past, e.g., the Reformed only ever used the term "wine" in relation to the Supper and thus assume they defended alcoholic beverages on theological grounds (when it very well might be due to a change in usage of the terms and available methods of preservation and marketing that caused a shift in how we today understand the term).
(p.s., I didn't vote in the poll since the poll was for those who have strong convictions that only "wine" should be used. I think fermented juice or alcoholic wine is preferred, but I don't think the fermentation is essential to the element so I would certainly partake if non-alcoholic was served).
Wine: from the Latin vinum, from the Greek οἴνη (wine/vine). The Scots actually used to used "vine" to refer to the drink.
Vine. Vinegar. They all have the same root words: something that comes from a vine. I think people used to think of "wine" as "liquid that comes from grapes", "the blood of grapes", etc. We see "sour wine" and "new wine" and "old wine", but all have this idea of coming from the vine (like grapes!).
Yes, in an age without refrigeration or pasteurization, wine would have been fermented to one degree or another, but the level of fermentation didn't change it from "grape juice" into "wine" in their thinking. In today's thinking and language we have "wine" and "not wine" (grape juice) and I just haven't seen evidence to suggest those categories were how people used to think of it.
We see "wine presses", not "grape juice presses", although certainly it was "grape juice" (to use our terminology) before it was fermented.
In the cupbearer's dream in Genesis 40, we see him squeezing the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, but I doubt Pharaoh was opposed to alcohol.
I think we talk past each other when we make a sharp distinction between "wine" and "grape juice" today that didn't exist in the past. I think it would be more edifying to use the terms "wine" and "non-alcoholic wine" or "juice" and "fermented juice" so we can get past the language and get to the heart of the question.
Try this thought experiment: is Port wine appropriate for the Lord's Supper? If you said "yes, because it's wine", well, Port is a "fortified wine" which I think is far more removed from biblical wine or Lord's Supper wine, than freshly squeezed grapes would be. But because it's called "wine" it seems to get a pass, despite the addition of distilled spirits which have nothing to do with grapes.
Did Jesus use fermented juice? Almost certainly so, although it's always been interesting to me to note that the text in the Gospels and Corinthians never uses the term "wine", but "fruit of the vine" and "cup". So instead of the question being "wine" or "not wine", it becomes: is fermentation essential to the element? I don't believe so, even as I disagree with the abstinence movement that initiated the move away from it.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone in the past saying that squeezing your grapes into a cup before the Supper was inappropriate or a violation because it hadn't had time to ferment and become "wine". I'm not aware of anyone who argued for a minimum period of fermentation.
Regardless, I'd urge caution about using today's terminology and categories to read imagined distinctions into the past, e.g., the Reformed only ever used the term "wine" in relation to the Supper and thus assume they defended alcoholic beverages on theological grounds (when it very well might be due to a change in usage of the terms and available methods of preservation and marketing that caused a shift in how we today understand the term).
(p.s., I didn't vote in the poll since the poll was for those who have strong convictions that only "wine" should be used. I think fermented juice or alcoholic wine is preferred, but I don't think the fermentation is essential to the element so I would certainly partake if non-alcoholic was served).
Last edited:
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Limiting your question to "those who accept no substitute" seems like it would skew your poll results. But I will respond to your question anyway even though I, like Logan, merely believe that fermented wine is preferred, not essential.
We need to remember that, along with baptism, partaking of the Lord's Supper is our visible fellowship as a church. To refuse it is to refuse fellowship with that body of believers. So then, assuming someone believes in the use of fermented wine, the question to ask is this: Is the Bible's insistence on fermentation of the Communion-cup contents stronger than its insistence that we keep fellowship with other believers? I suppose someone might argue that the Bible has enough insistence on regulated worship, and with it enough evidence for fermentation, that getting this right supersedes the importance of keeping fellowship. But I will respond that keeping fellowship is also a huge point of biblical emphasis, so that with very rare exceptions the person should probably look for a new church he finds acceptable, not simply refuse Communion. Christian communion matters a great deal.
I do think the potential inebriating effects of "the cup" is part of the rich scriptural imagery surrounding the Supper, especially the judgment side of it (for example, Jeremiah 25:15-16). But there is so much richness in the Supper's imagery, and so many legitimate connections we might make to various themes in the Bible, that we must be careful not to become overly insistent on something non-essential even if that theme is biblical. For instance, there's much biblical imagery that supports using a table for the Supper. In fact, I would argue the table theme is much bigger in Scripture, and more connected to the Supper, than is fermentation. Yet I would not refuse fellowship with my Christian brothers just because they serve Communion without using a table. Sure, the table theme ought to be recognized, but having a table there is not essential—and having fellowship is.
We need to remember that, along with baptism, partaking of the Lord's Supper is our visible fellowship as a church. To refuse it is to refuse fellowship with that body of believers. So then, assuming someone believes in the use of fermented wine, the question to ask is this: Is the Bible's insistence on fermentation of the Communion-cup contents stronger than its insistence that we keep fellowship with other believers? I suppose someone might argue that the Bible has enough insistence on regulated worship, and with it enough evidence for fermentation, that getting this right supersedes the importance of keeping fellowship. But I will respond that keeping fellowship is also a huge point of biblical emphasis, so that with very rare exceptions the person should probably look for a new church he finds acceptable, not simply refuse Communion. Christian communion matters a great deal.
I do think the potential inebriating effects of "the cup" is part of the rich scriptural imagery surrounding the Supper, especially the judgment side of it (for example, Jeremiah 25:15-16). But there is so much richness in the Supper's imagery, and so many legitimate connections we might make to various themes in the Bible, that we must be careful not to become overly insistent on something non-essential even if that theme is biblical. For instance, there's much biblical imagery that supports using a table for the Supper. In fact, I would argue the table theme is much bigger in Scripture, and more connected to the Supper, than is fermentation. Yet I would not refuse fellowship with my Christian brothers just because they serve Communion without using a table. Sure, the table theme ought to be recognized, but having a table there is not essential—and having fellowship is.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I do have a strong conviction that wine should be used, but it is less strong than my conviction that a common cup be used. Still, I do not refrain despite the fact that our congregation uses pasteurized wine in individual thimbles.
I'm pretty sure Christ used unpasteurized juice from grapes and thus had some level of fermenatation. But I'm entirely sure Christ shared a cup with the disciples and told them "This cup is that new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
If you bought it at a store, it was pasteurized and therefore incapable of fermentation.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Logan,
What are you thoughts on at least the English distinction in the Nazarite vow? I recently came across this in four family devotions, but I am not familiar with the original languages to know what is underlying the translation decision.
Numbers 6:1-3 (NKJV):
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, 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.
Regarding the OP, I am pro-wine only, but would still partake if grape juice is offered. I do not find any of the arguments offered for the protestant movement to grape juice convincing.
Last edited:
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
To jump in on Logan's behalf, the Hebrew does say "the juice of grapes", though the construction is unique and HALOT suggests the alternative possibility "grape extract". The key point is that it can be drunk. However, we should note that this passage is not merely about avoiding alcoholic beverages but everything grape related, including fresh (moist) grapes and raisins (dry grapes), as well as grape skins and seeds (Num. 6:4). So it seems that including the juice of freshly pressed grapes may have been included for completeness, not because it was a regular beverage choice. Indeed, it would have rarely been available in ancient Israel, given the short time between grape harvest and the grapes going bad if they didn't ferment.
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm going to take what I'm sure people will call a hard line on this, but I believe I have biblical reasons.
If someone wants to press grapes, pour that directly into a cup, and administer the Lord's supper with that liquid, there would be a missing component or layer of biblical symbolism: alcohol. It would be like bringing bread dough to the table instead of baked bread. I hope that everyone here would object to that very strongly, since the missing component or layer of symbolism would be that bread dough cannot be "broken" like baked bread. Christ clearly intended the bread to be broken in the sight of all as a feature of the supper that would be loaded with meaning. Obviously.
What else did Christ intend to communicate and convey in his selection of elements and manner in which they are taken, in his memorial supper? Many things, including good cheer and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is where the alcohol content of the wine comes in. Wine with alcohol cheers the heart of man (Psalm 104:15) in a specific way that non-alcoholic juice does not. When you drink wine and sense that subtle burn in your mouth from the alcohol, you know that there will be a profound effect upon you if you continue drinking that would certainly not take place if you were drinking Welch's. This communicates volumes to us about the joy and sanctification of having the Holy Spirit within us as worthy receivers of Christ's body and blood. The Holy Spirit changes a man from the inside out, just as surely as a man stupefied by too much wine is changed in another way. I could say more.
Without alcoholic wine, all this symbolism is lost, garbled, defenestrated! How can you help but recoil at this, especially knowing that it is done intentionally? I call it a pollution or corruption and not to be "any wise" approved.
If someone wants to press grapes, pour that directly into a cup, and administer the Lord's supper with that liquid, there would be a missing component or layer of biblical symbolism: alcohol. It would be like bringing bread dough to the table instead of baked bread. I hope that everyone here would object to that very strongly, since the missing component or layer of symbolism would be that bread dough cannot be "broken" like baked bread. Christ clearly intended the bread to be broken in the sight of all as a feature of the supper that would be loaded with meaning. Obviously.
What else did Christ intend to communicate and convey in his selection of elements and manner in which they are taken, in his memorial supper? Many things, including good cheer and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is where the alcohol content of the wine comes in. Wine with alcohol cheers the heart of man (Psalm 104:15) in a specific way that non-alcoholic juice does not. When you drink wine and sense that subtle burn in your mouth from the alcohol, you know that there will be a profound effect upon you if you continue drinking that would certainly not take place if you were drinking Welch's. This communicates volumes to us about the joy and sanctification of having the Holy Spirit within us as worthy receivers of Christ's body and blood. The Holy Spirit changes a man from the inside out, just as surely as a man stupefied by too much wine is changed in another way. I could say more.
Without alcoholic wine, all this symbolism is lost, garbled, defenestrated! How can you help but recoil at this, especially knowing that it is done intentionally? I call it a pollution or corruption and not to be "any wise" approved.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I appreciate the clear communication. My understanding is that you see alcohol specifically (or more properly ethanol) as inherently essential to the contents of the cup. Alcohol is an essential element because of the symbolism and effects you have listed, among others that you think there could be. I appreciate that consistency.
The problem I have with it is that this symbolism is not found anywhere in the institution or instructions about the Supper. One very well (and many have) found similar symbolism about the bread---supporting the exclusive use of both leavened and unleavened bread! Just because we can find symbolism, or we think we see symbolism, does not mean that it is essential to the element, even though it may be quite appropriate to it.
It is certainly dangerous to remove any symbolism inherent in the Cup. But it's also dangerous to add symbolism to the Cup.
MilitaryBrat2007
Puritan Board Freshman
This is a valid point: What standard do we judge the wine in the Lord's Supper?
And at what point do we not partake?
And at what point do we not partake?
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I would add to this that the fermentation process represents transformation: vivification from death, symbolising the bringing to life from the dead first in regards to Christ's resurrection and then the believer in Christ.
Also fortified wine still undegoes a degree of fermentation.
Calvin:
"When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. For if we duly consider what profit we have gained by the breaking of his sacred body, and the shedding of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, agreeably to this analogy, most appropriately represent it when they are communicated to us." (From Calvin's chapter on the Lord's Supper in the Institutes)
Calvin also thinks it's a matter indifferent whether the wine is red or White. The alcoholic nature of it is what is important: Ribena does not have the same effect on the body that wine does.
I would add that I say this as one who is tee-total otherwise, viewing the recreational drinking of alcohol as a scourge on society. The only reason I can think of for the introduction of Ribena to the sacrament is the antipaedobaptists' (proper) aversion to recreational drinking. But they take things too far when they do harm to the sacrament. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to use non-alcoholic wine in the sacrament.
Last edited:
chuckd
Puritan Board Junior
Do you insist on only leavened bread for the same reason? I know this was one of the big divisions between east and west that caused the Great Schism.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
If you have such a strong conviction, you should seek to find a church to join where you will not be removing yourself from the Table. Unfortunately, both the ARP Church and the RPCNA have a long history of being involved in the Prohibition movement so a result today is that it is still quite common to use grape juice in communion (along with other Presbyterians in the US too). I do not take a hardline stance personally and believe that grape juice fits under the category of "fruit of the vine," but do believe alcholic wine is preferable.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
I've never had unleavened bread at the sacrament. This has never even been a question that has arisen. I have thus never thought about it. We just use real bread.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Why is the alcohol content considered critical to symbolism but the symbolism of the color (red like blood) is indifferent? Wouldn't that be a more obvious and relevant symbolism?
Be careful of reading a positive description of one thing as an implied condemnation of anything else. If he's indifferent about the color, then I'm not so sure Calvin is emphatic about the alcohol. In fact, I think Calvin approved the missionaries in South America using water because of the difficulty of importing wine, even though that certainly wasn't ideal. We don't argue from exceptions but if this was the case, it does indicate that he didn't see alcohol as an essential element.
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
"...removing yourself from the table"
"the church... long history of being involved in Prohibition movement... result today... common to use grape juice in communion..."
Help me understand this one. Which group made a change and which did not? Why would the group not making a change be described in terms suggesting they are unwilling to preserve communion?
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
Hi Blake,
Sorry for my lack of clarity. I’ll admit I’m struggling a bit with how you worded your questions but I’ll do my best to answer them. My first statement is about how if you are not able to commune with a church because of disagreements about how the Lord’s Supper is administered, you are practically removing yourself from the Table. You are not being disciplined by the Session of the church, but being forbidden from partaking is a form of discipline. If someone is conscience-bound to a definition of the elements or method of administration that prohibits their own partaking, I see it as especially important to be a part of a church where you can participate in the Sacrament.
Yes, it it is a recent change (only about a century old at most) of churches using grape juice instead of wine. The fundamental problem (different definition of how the element itself in Communion is defined) is much older than this, as one of the key division points (cf., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East–West_Schism#Mutual_excommunication_of_1054 ) between the Eastern and Western churches was whether to use leavened or unleavened bread. I believe there is room to advocate for change in a church if you disagree with the Session but ultimately, this is a more timely issue for the individual if one is conscience bound and cannot participate in Communion. For another example, if one is convinced of the necessity of their child being baptized, and they are a member of a Baptist church which does not practice paedo/oiko baptism, while one can try to convince the leadership of the church to return to the older, historical, and biblical practice of such baptism, more than likely it will be necessary to join a church which practices this; otherwise your child will remain unbaptized.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
It needs to be recognized that, in Calvin's era, no one had yet begun pasteurizing grape juice (or anything else for that matter) to remove its ability to naturally ferment, so we need be careful assuming that when someone before Mr. Welch's day says "wine" that they are necessarily opposed to unfermented grape juice - the latter simply did not exist. Welch first pasteurized Concord grape juice in 1869 as an alternative to fermented wine for church communion services - it was originally marketed as "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine, Pure Grape Juice." Regardless, nothing in the Calvin passage provided indicates that he believed the alcohol content was necessary to set forth the symbolism of the cup.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
It should also be noted that the opposition to using fermented wine in the Lord's Supper is almost exclusively a late 19th century American innovation. This article is a good summary of how this came to be: "Welch’s Grape Juice started out as a substitute for sacramental wine"
Welch was a Methodist from southern New Jersey - the nearby island town of Ocean City, which started as a Methodist retreat for camp meetings in 1879, was and remains a "dry town" (no alcohol sales allowed). Ironically, I just came across a media release that Welch's just introduced its first 2 canned alcoholic grape-based cocktails in January 2024...
Welch was a Methodist from southern New Jersey - the nearby island town of Ocean City, which started as a Methodist retreat for camp meetings in 1879, was and remains a "dry town" (no alcohol sales allowed). Ironically, I just came across a media release that Welch's just introduced its first 2 canned alcoholic grape-based cocktails in January 2024...
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
Excuse my ignorance here.. in the same manner, why do churches use grape juice instead of wine today, and is it a widespread thing?
My personal opinion is that it seems more natural to think the important process of wine is the fermentation, and the alcohol as a byproduct is relatively unimportant. If alcohol could be a stumbling block, there is such a thing as alcohol free wine, which seems like a far better option than grape juice.
Also, contrary to what has been said about Calvin’s view, it would seem natural to insist that wine used in the Lord’s Supper, normatively speaking, should be red as the communication of the Lord’s blood.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I'd be curious which denominations serve wine exclusively. I don't recall having taken communion at a church where they had ONLY wine. I personally prefer wine, but I could also see it as a stumbling block to children and congregants who don't drink alcohol at all for various reasons.
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Two I know of - Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) and Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland are wine and common cup.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
It is almost exclusively a late 19th century American innovation, heavily associated with the temperance/prohibition movement and Wesleyan Methodism. When you believe justification is conditional on progress in sanctification, you start looking for ways to assure yourself in works of the flesh instead of the Spirit. Alcohol, because of its abuse and the subsequent evils in society all the way back to Noah makes for an easy target if you are pursuing Christian perfectionism.
What's the difference?
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
Yes! Sorry, forgot about them (and I shouldn’t have). They are an example of an indigenous American denomination, which is helpful.