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 lets 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 todays 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 Lords 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 Lets 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 Lords supper or its performance! In reference to the Lords 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 cant 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 Lords Supper.
I look forward to your response.