Communion Wine or Grapejuice

Wine or Grapejuice

  • Wine

    Votes: 5 20.0%

  • Grapejuice

    Votes: 15 60.0%

  • Camm option : Mountain Dew

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Total voters
    25
Just had communion at AM service this morning (since I just said we rarely have it at AM service...seems a little more common again lately, though I haven't paid attention to any particular schedule).

Grape juice. With little square crackers. And we went up front to take the elements. =)
 
Because I'll be church planting and have to think about this...
Grape juice.
Not that I'm against wine but because of the temptation and problems it could cause.
 
When I was still attending church, we used Grape Juice, with these little wafer things. In Basic, they had these weird all in one containers with the juice in the lower part with the wafer in the top bubble.

Man, that was awhile ago it seems...
 
I've had those little all-in-one communion packs, too. Usually at a big event. Easier for packing, shipping and handling, I guess.
 
Have been recently visiting Acts29 churchs in the area. All 5 of them use the same style. Tables set up each week with Wine and Grape Juice, clearly labeled, and a basket of some form of bread/wafer. You are to dip the bread into the drink. It is usually at the end of the service during the last few songs that people get up on their own and go to the tables, partake, then return to their seats for more worship by music. I really like the style and enjoy the opportunity to take it every week.
 
We attended an Acts 29 church for a time while we were in St. Louis. There, they had big loaves of bread. You pulled off a piece of the bread, then dunked it in grape juice. There was no wine. Not that they were against it; they organized theology discussions at a small local brewery. It could have changed, though. We haven't been there in something like 5 years.
 
I remember reading some article that discussed the wine that would've been used is different then wine we know it as today. Does that make a difference? I also recall reading something about Jesus used wine because that was what was on hand. Water was generally not potable and coca-cola hadn't been invented yet. Not trying to poke fun at the discussion, trying to make a point that cultural context may have something to play in the whole thing to.
 
Last edited:
weird, acts29 is based off of mars hill in seattle originally and when i went there they had wine and grape juice and you were to dip pita bread into either one and eat it.

I have never tried it with wine but i wouldt mind just to say I did. its one of those things where I really dont mind how its done, as long as there is a reference and our hearts are right before God.
 
Grapejuice. Some churches I've been to served both. Reason being while there are teen programs, many teenagers (including myself) would go to main hall with parents. While one tiny sip isn't really much of a health concern, it is a legal issue.
However, biblically its supposed to be wine... though I suppose, like the above poster mentioned, as long as we're doing it for the right reasons its fine.
 
Grape juice. Pure grape juice. And oyster crackers or any other type of unleavened bread.

Wine at that time was kind of like Soda (up North) or Coke (down south). It was a generic term for any juice based beverage. Leaven (yeast) was added to ferment and prolong it's life.

They were eating the passover meal which commanded unleavened bread and it stands to reason they would not be consuming leavened wine (juice) with it.

From a type standpoint, the grape juice represents the blood of Jesus and the bread the body. Leaven is used to represent sin so it again is reasonable to believe we should not be using leavened (fermented) grape juice or bread.

Because of the warning of death and sickness that goes with it, my church only does The Lords Supper after a service explaining it and the dangers described in the Bible as well as an altar call. Then the plates and trays are passed thru the congregation. We finish with a song and dismiss. Usually just before Easter, Christmas and our Church's anniversary.
 
Hmm seems a little silly that people called Jesus a drunk (Luke 7:34) if he was only drinking juice.
Would also make a whole bunch of connoisseurs flat wrong if the first miracle was only making juice.
Trying to say wine in the bible is other then wine, is trying to add things to the text in my opinion.

Yes no leaven in bread..."That’s why it is called The Feast of Unleavened Bread. There was never a prohibition against wine (fermented grape juice), in fact it was and remains the norm for Passover celebrations. In fact, the term Jesus used, fruit of the vine, was used throughout the Mediterranean region to refer to fermented grape juice (aka wine) used for ceremonial purposes.
Passover is not The Feast of No Leavening — it is The Feast of Unleavened Bread."

I do agree that partaking of communion is a very serious matter, I like that your church treats it as such. I always thought it odd that some churches just throw it out there with no warning or explanation. I think the pastor/shepherd is supposed to guard the table much better then they are in most churches.
 
Last edited:
ewoksrule said:
Hmm seems a little silly that people called Jesus a drunk (Luke 7:34) if he was only drinking juice.
Would also make a whole bunch of connoisseurs flat wrong if the first miracle was only making juice.
Trying to say wine in the bible is other then wine, is trying to add things to the text in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges. Never said Jesus never drank wine. The comparison between him and John the Baptist could very well make that point. It could however be argued that we are identified by the people we choose to associate with. Same thing with the water to wine miracle. The way it reads it could very well be fermented. Or it could be that fresh grape juice was considered better than fermented.

What I was taught (and honestly I have not done my own research into this) was what I stated. Wine was a generic term for any juice, fermented or not.

The argument for the referenced wine to be pre-fermentation comes from the fact that we know Jesus is the High Priest who offered the once for all sacrifice. And he was also the Pastor of the first Church. Both offices are prohibited from partaking of fermented wine.

However that is open to personal interpertation so I again go back to my original point.

The grape juice is supposed to represent the Blood of Jesus. If leaven is used to represent sin then fermented grape juice represents sin tainted blood. I don't see how wine could be used for purpose of representing the shedding of His blood.

ewoksrule said:
Passover is not The Feast of No Leavening — it is The Feast of Unleavened Bread."
Click to expand...
Exodus 12:15 states that "ye shall put away leaven out of your houses" and Exodus 12:20 states that "Ye shall eat nothing leavened"

You are correct in that it is referred to as the feast of unleavened bread. It could also be pointed out that numerous times it always refers to eating and bread. But my personal opinion is that you're not going to take the leaven out of the bread and leave it in the juice.


ewoksrule said:
I do agree that partaking of communion is a very serious matter, I like that your church treats it as such. I always thought it odd that some churches just throw it out there with no warning or explanation. I think the pastor/shepherd is supposed to guard the table much better then they are in most churches.
Click to expand...

Really, this is the important part. Fermented or unfermented grape juice falls under dietary laws issue. This was address by the fact that it's not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that defiles a man. Our heart is where the issue lies. The Bible is very clear concerning the dangers of taking the Lord's Supper unworthly. For a Sheppard to not warn his flock is not good.
 
Lloren, I don't think you will be getting a scriptural reference that actually says, "No, wine for priests and pastors." There are a couple that say, "No drunkenness."

There are Christian groups who interpret scripture to be prohibitional with regard to alcohol, but you have to stretch the logical and spiritual understanding of a passage to claim that Paul or Jesus never drank wine - real wine.

By the way, nice picture.
 
Well come to think of it, a pastor a loooong time ago back in Singapore told me a story about an alcoholic's long struggle with alcoholism. Anyway, he relapsed so many times (believe 17) that on the last time, his pastor actually said to him "GET OUT". And one of the times he relapsed was because he thought a little alcohol in the communion wine wouldn't hurt. Just one sip and he was right back where he started.

Lastly I would like to say that if by 'some Christian groups', perhaps you meant Methodists? Believe it was revised recently to translate as "drink reasonably" but don't quote me on that, so many sites saying different things.
 
Last edited:
It's really hard to say exactly what each group believes. Because there are subtle differences between even the Methodist denominations (Free M, United M, African Episcopalian M, etc).

I read once that there are technically about 20,000 different denominations within the Protestant church because we are all free to interpret exactly what we believe each passage says, and apply it to a different extent than everyone else. Other belief systems, by contrast, typically have a single figure-head that makes all decisions.

Just think about the difference between your church and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. There is a whole system of priests, bishops, cardinals, etc, clear up to the Pope. Everyone under the Pope responds to what the Pope decides (since they believe that the Pope is God's elect and representative). By contrast, your church exists within 4 walls, and may report to a board or council somewhere else (officially speaking) but your local pastor and elders decide what the "church" believes and teaches.

So who said the passage teaches to drink responsibly? It's really hard to tell. But most believe that is the spirit of the requirement that Paul wrote about in 2 Timothy and Titus.
 
Last edited:
Well scripture never said anything about not drinking wine AT ALL, though it did say don't be drunk or something along the lines of that.
Though for the sake of our brother/sister who may be having... alcohol problems (more common in some communities/demographics), I'd vote to not serve wine, or like one church I've been to before, outer tier = grape juice, innermost tier = wine (it's served on some circular cupholder thing). But I believe it was a relatively new thing where I live (past 15) years? because I did remember wine in at least one church when I was very young.
 
Well scripture never said anything about not drinking wine AT ALL
Click to expand...

Paul told Timothy to drink some wine to help his stomach problems.

1 Timothy 5:23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities
Click to expand...
 
Not sure how I missed this but sorry.

Scripture reference for Priest not allowed to drink.

Leviticus 10:8 - Starting with Aaron and his sons the Priest were forbidden to drink (wine or strong drink) when they went into the Tabernacle. Basically when they were performing their service to the people and God.
Open to interpretation and personal choice on how you want to apply this to Jesus and the Supper but I've made my choice clear. Jesus is the High Priest and was always in service to us and God while he was here in the flesh. He even refers to His body as the Temple

Scripture reference for Pastors not allowed to drink.

I Timothy 3:3 and 8 - King James 1611 makes a clear difference between not given to wine and not given to much wine (Bishop (or Pastor) and Deacon). NIV has watered this verse down some and loses this distinction. It could be argued that "not given to wine" means not controlled by wine but that would mean Deacons could be controlled by some wine but not by much wine. (they could be a little drunk but not a lot). When compared to all the other verses in the Bible that talk about the dangers of drunkenness this interpretation seems to fall a little short.

Again, it must be stressed that these are personal (not private) interpretations based upon the King James 1611 and personal study.
Communion or the Lords Supper is not something required for entry into Heaven and as such falls into the minor doctrine category. As long as we don't take it unworthily we may be told we are wrong in our interpretation but that is as far as it goes. Even taking it unworthily will not keep us out of Heaven. It may put us there faster but it won't keep us out.
 
Wolfeman said:
I Timothy 3:3 and 8 - King James 1611 makes a clear difference between not given to wine and not given to much wine (Bishop (or Pastor) and Deacon). NIV has watered this verse down some and loses this distinction.
Click to expand...
Which version of NIV are you referring to? Each one I checked at http://www.biblegateway.com showed the passage in 3:3 as "not given to drunkenness."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top