The first bigamist

It's amazing what details emerge from careful study of the Biblical text:

https://xcancel.com/DrPJWilliams/status/1056688801232371712#m - Dr. Peter Williams, noting details in the biblical record of the first bigamist, Lamech.

Wine and grape juice

Personally, I am happy when celebrating communion to drink either fermented wine, or grape juice. This is because all the Biblical accounts either use the words "fruit of the vine", or just "cup" to refer metonymically to the contents of the cup. Both fermented wine (henceforth this is what I mean if I just say "wine") and grape juice are "fruit of the vine". The New Testament has other terms that specifically identify wine, but the accounts of the Lord's Supper don't use them. And so, for me, there it is. 

There are some, however, who insist that it is important - even some of them say, a matter for breaking communion (which boggles my mind) - that the fruit of the vine must be fermented. If it is not fermented, then the church has been unfaithful to Jesus - in effect, it is disobedient, over the only repeated ordinance of the Christian life.

When I come across such a person, I try to understand why they believe this. Now I confess, I've not gone hunting for an academic treatment, nor have I ever come across one (or had one offered by the people saying that it's important). But I take it that if someone is so convinced that they are teaching it to others, then they must have done the research, and have a decent argument.

In Christianity Today this month an article has been published, "Jesus did not serve grape juice". The author explains (and here's my way of understanding what he says!) that when he teaches college students, he burdens their consciences with an idea that they'd never encountered before: that they are not celebrating the meal that Jesus instituted, because unfermented grape juice, and wine, are two different liquids, and only the latter is found in the Bible. Using the former removes all Biblical symbolism from the meal, and effectively makes it a different ordinance from the one which Christ ordained. The sign has been changed, nay, removed. It signifies "worse than nothing", and is akin to "someone getting baptized in oil, tar, or urine". It is a matter of "obedience"; the miscreants using grape juice are "not following Jesus’ stated instructions". That's quite a burden to put on someone's conscience, especially in a formal role as a teacher of others. Is the case well-grounded? 

The article is not short, at around 2,500 words. But the actual argument is very brief (or I might say, thin). Much of the article simply asserts the conclusions of the argument (that those using grape juice are doing something bad, that they don't understand what they're doing), or the conclusions of things that aren't actually argued at all. Let me explain what I mean by that.

Since the gospel accounts only mention either "the fruit of the vine", or "the cup", and 1 Corinthians (the only other place with a direct mention) mentions "the cup", the key thing I look for in someone making this argument is how they argue that by using the phrase "the fruit of the vine", God has implicitly (or explicitly) instructed us to use only fermented products. This isn't quite the same as arguing that Jesus and his disciples did drink a fermented product at the inauguration of the Last Supper. Someone would be likely, of course, to begin by arguing that. Then they might want to explain what degree of fermentation it had, and how we know that the same degree is required for us, or is it just any degree at all, or must it be within 50%, or what? Must we drink from grapes known to be in the same genetic families as those found in that part of the world, or not? I don't mean this as a pedant's question: I mean it has someone wanting to understand how their reasoning works out, how it applies in practice. For example, since at the wedding feast at Cana in John 1, since it would appear that the manner of weddings then was to drink wine for several days, then those who say that wine in those days had a low alcohol content are likely to be correct (unless we are to conceive of Jesus producing another round of highly-intoxicating beverages long after the average guest was already far gone). i.e. nearer to 3% than the 12% usually served in communion wine (remember, my own position is that God hasn't told us that there's a particular degree of fermentation that we must imitate). So, just how close must the drink we use at communion be to that which Jesus drank? I take it that it is to be produced from red grapes, in order to represent shed blood. I find nothing that says to what degree it must be fermented, whether 0%, 3%, 12% or something else. Given that the author of the above article says nothing about degree other than just fermentation, I infer that he just requires more than zero fermentation.

What, then, does the author have to say? He runs through his entire presentation of his argument that "the fruit of the vine" must be fermented, and cannot simply be any beverage from grapes, in a single sentence:

Moreover, Jesus refers to having drunk “the fruit of the vine” from the shared cup (Mark 14:25), and this is a biblical shorthand for wine (Num. 18:12; Deut. 18:4; 28:30; Josh. 24:13; Zech. 8:12, ESV). 

2,500 words to make the case; and that was it. Really only 7 words: "This is a biblical shorthand for wine", together with 5 verse references, which for unexplained reasons we're guided to look up in one specific Bible translation. So I did.

Here they are (ESV). Do these verses show that "fruit of the vine" is a biblical shorthand for "fermented wine"?

Numbers 18:12 All the best of the oil and all the best of the wine and of the grain, the firstfruits of what they give to the Lord, I give to you. 

Deuteronomy 18:4 The firstfruits of your grain, of your wine and of your oil, and the first fleece of your sheep, you shall give him.

Deuteronomy 28:30 You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall ravish her. You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it. You shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not enjoy its fruit. 

Joshua 24:13 I gave you a land on which you had not labored and cities that you had not built, and you dwell in them. You eat the fruit of vineyards and olive orchards that you did not plant.

Zechariah 8:12 For there shall be a sowing of peace. The vine shall give its fruit, and the ground shall give its produce, and the heavens shall give their dew. And I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.

Reading these verses, I am scratching my head. What is the argument? The author is trying to persuade us that "the fruit of the vine" specifically and necessarily refers to fermented wine, and cannot be used with reference to grape juice prior to fermentation beginning. The two expressions, "fruit of the vine", and "fermented wine", he is claiming, are synonyms. The "fermentation" element is part of the essential meaning, and cannot be removed. How that is in the above 5 verses, I could not work out. Obviously, nobody doubts that people made wine from vineyards. But in the reference in Joshua, it says "eat the fruit of vineyards". This, presumably, means grapes. We drink wine, but we eat grapes. Grapes, at the stage that people eat them, are not fermented. In the verse in Zechariah, "the vine shall give its fruit". I don't think that we can legitimately say that here Zechariah meant to specify specifically either eating grapes, or drinking any drinkable product that comes from grapes. In Deuteronomy 28:30, likewise, there is the "enjoy(ing)" of the "fruit" of the vineyard - presumably, again, in any form. Given, as I say, that I don't deny that Israelites drank fermented wine, I don't see how the other two verses help either.

The other part of the article which seems to be key is where the author asserts that (unfermented) grape juice only became possible through a 19th century innovation: 

"grape juice in Communion was introduced by the American temperance movement. It was made possible by Mr. Welch himself, a teetotaling Methodist minister in the late 19th century who pioneered a way of preventing the process of fermentation in the sweet juice squeezed from grapes. This enabled believers who wished to abstain from drinking alcohol to do so every day of the week, Sunday mornings included."

The links (which are part of the article), explain this further. Thomas Welch applied pasteurisation to the wine, to overcome the "problem" that grape juice ordinarily stored at room temperature will begin to ferment.

I have a few points of reaction here:

• It is implied that pasteurisation was an entirely novel invention, something too technologically advanced for people before the 19th century. However, since pasteurisation is essentially just heating a liquid to a sufficient temperature, and since humans heating liquids has been around as far as we know since the dawn of time, this is implausible. And so, at another source: "Before Louis Pasteur's formal development of pasteurization, ancient civilizations used rudimentary forms of heat treatment. The Chinese, Egyptians, and Romans would heat wine to improve its shelf life, unknowingly laying the groundwork for modern pasteurization techniques." - https://www.sterlitech.com/blog/post/the-evolution-and-impact-of-pasteurization
• Indeed, the one of the articles linked by the author notes that, before Thomas Welch "One solution was to squeeze grapes during the week and serve the juice before it fermented". Squeeze the fruit, and you get fruit juice: it's not nuclear physics. The article goes on to note, speaking of the USA, that "grapes were not readily available to every church". That wasn't a problem in first-century Israel at the time of the Passover, which brings us back to the question of how precisely and in which specific aspects the liquid in our communion must replicate theirs. Grapes were not available at all in many parts of the world until the global supply chains of recent decades, and indeed the article's author makes an exception for missionary situations.
• Complete fermentation takes weeks, rather than days, at room temperature (i.e. to get to the point where the process completes, when 12% alchohol, as found generally in modern wines, kills off the yeasts, and so no further fermentation can take place). But even then, in Israel, they would have been familiar with colder caves, and the cooler temperatures accessed by digging into the ground. I suspect that the author of the article would reply "ah, but if some fermentation has taken place, then it's no longer grape juice". An unexplained point throughout his argument seems to be that the key line is between zero fermentation, and some (more than zero). But why all the Biblical symbolism changes, and why you are considered in the eyes of God to have a completely different thing, when you go from 0.00% to 0.01% alcohol content, is not explained, simply assumed/asserted.

Towards the end, the writer asserts:

Biblically, grape juice signifies nothing—except perhaps its eventual transition into wine, as in the Nazirite vows of abstention found in Numbers 6:1-4.

This sort of thing is why I say that he has chosen to lay heavy burdens upon people's consciences. We are told by this phrase that the Bible positively tells us that "grape juice signifies nothing". By implication, the Lord's Supper is not just slightly spoiled, but has its meaning removed. This time, we're not specifically told to consult the verses specifically in the ESV translation, but in case that was important, it's that translation I've  quoted here:

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. 4 All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.

In what way do these verses tell us something about "the [eventual] transition of grape juice into wine", something that changes between zero and meaningful symbolism? We are not told. I do notice, though, that the author here has shown that he knows that his previous statements, about grape juice not being possible until the time of Thomas Welch, are too strong. Here in Numbers 6:3, there is a distinction between grape juice and wine, over a millennium before the Last Supper. As I've said, after all, you get grape juice by crushing grapes - fermentation gets going after 1-3 days, and generally runs its course in 1-3 weeks. The assertion that grape juice was an unknown or impossible substance in the ancient world, is both prima facie absurd, and shown to be false by one of the writer's own proof texts. Nothing in Numbers 6 supports the assertion that it has been quoted in favour of, that there is an unbridgeable gulf between fermented and unfermented grape juice, which completely changes (adds, or removes) all the Biblical symbolism that links either or both to shed blood.

In conclusion, I found this article very disappointing. The actual argument is barely made; most of the content circles around the actual questions in various ways. That "grape juice" and "wine" are two entirely different substances, with different symbolisms, and that the Bible makes clear that it's the latter and not the former which must always (or at least, normally) be used in communion, is asserted, but never shown. Bible verses are referenced, but when looked up, they do not appear to say what the author asserts about them, or even imply things that contradict him. His arguments appear to defy the Bible, common sense and what we do know historically. If we are meant to lay this burden upon all disciples in all churches everywhere, insisting that when the Holy Spirit said "fruit of the vine", that this means "with at least some minimal degree of fermentation having occurred" (we're not sure how much), then it needs a better argument than this. In some places and times, I don't doubt, believers have been burdened with the false teaching that they must never allow a drop of alcohol to pass their lips. Deciding to instead today burden them with the teaching that they've not participated in the Lord's Supper unless they do, is not an improvement.

Greek, and the New Testament in particular, had words for wine and alcoholic drinks; we find them in Matthew 9:17, 27:34, 27:48, Luke 1:15, 1 Timothy 3:3, 3:8 and 5:23, amongst others, for example. In the accounts of the Lord's Supper, a more generic term, "fruit of the vine", is used. In Numbers (which of course is in Hebrew), the existence of non-alcoholic grape juice is recognised. So why must the same words in the New Testament be taken as requiring us to understand that we must use fermented wine? After reading this article, I am none the wiser.

I don't recall that

I just came across this book  blurb, for a new title from Founders Ministry in the USA:

For decades now, Christian men have been told that their strength is a problem, their ambition a sin, and power is dangerous to wield. Instead, they are offered a feminized faith which prizes inaction and passivity.

I've been around a few decades now; I can't recall being told any of those things, even once. Is my memory faulty?

It would, of course, be a fallacy to universalise my own experience.  The USA is, to me, another country. Am I just in the "wrong"  (or right!) circles? I could buy the book to find out what he's talking about....

... but given that those providing the blurbs for this book on Founders' Ministry's own website includes people who use the Internet to promote Nazi memes, argue for racial segregation, promote use of the N-word,  proclaim the superiority of the "Caucasian race", and defend others who praise Hitler and his policies, I'd rather not.

Footnote: for those who don't follow the British manner of understatement, and erroneously consider such phrases as "I'd rather not" a mark of being a passive girly-man, let me clarify its proper interpretation for you. It means "people doing this are enemies of Jesus Christ, to be marked and avoided" - is that better?

Gathering followers for oneself.....

"You're right to be angry. Here are some things to be righteously angry about. Become my follower, and I will keep on affirming your anger!"

There are not a few people on Twitter/X whose approach to so-called "ministry" could be summarised by the above 3 sentences. I'm not thinking of any one person in particular; it's a pervasive pattern. Possibly it has always been so - perhaps there was a would-be guru/rabbi/politician/etc. in every town's market-place whose soap-box speeches amounted to no more than this.

It might not be quite as unsubtle as the above 3 sentences. But remember: the reason why this approach works is not ultimately because of the huckster trying it. It's the suckers ready to buy the deal offered who ultimately make it a profitable business to be in. If nobody was buying, then there wouldn't be any sellers.

In the Scriptures, seeing sin, decline, decay, burning down of one's own house over one's head, is common. The prophets decry it often. The key difference is that their register when doing so is not that of the person gathering followers for himself. It's not "look at those evil clowns; follow me and let us condemn them together!" Rather, it's lament. The Biblical prophet is cut to the heart to see people wilfully ruining themselves, and longs for them to turn back to God. It's Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, or Paul being overcome by continual sorrow because his fellow-countrymen who persecuted him were not saved. It's combined with a re-consecration of one's self to the task of trying to persuade and win over those who are hurtling to destruction. It's not joyfully lampooning those clowns on the other side of the cultural divide: it's becoming all things to them so that by any means we might save some. May God help us.

Petty annoyances and minor slights

 https://www.challies.com/articles/petty-annoyances-and-minor-insults/

The pilgrim lens

This follows on from the previous post, here.

What should Christians do when they see things in their society, country or culture taking a turn for the worse?

We should, of course, always pray. And since we are rational creatures, made in God's image, intended to live in a creation without death in it, we will naturally mourn, and desire that it were otherwise. We should seek to be salt and light, to show a better way, and to preserve the blessing of what remains.

What we should not, though, do is turn to fear and anger, as if God had promised that in the last days, no terrible times will come (2 Timothy 3:1ff), and that things will just get progressively better. Rather, we should understand that were that to happen, it would be very bad for the health of the Christian church. What our real situation is, both corporately and individually, is usually masked by prosperity, but revealed through trials. Moreover, earthly trials remind us of what the actual calling of God's people is. Even though the patriarchs were promised that their descendants would have an earthly inheritance, yet the patriarchs themselves understood that this was not their true hope or motivation in their actions. As Hebrews 11:13-16 says:

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. 15 And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. 

Earthly trials are routinely sent by God as a spiritual blessing. He uses them as his means to sanctify his people, to mature them, and to prepare them for their true inheritance, in the presence of Christ and then at his return and the renewal of all things. Seeing things in this world rot, crumble or be torn down by plain stupidity or malice, performs a valuable spiritual function for us. We remember that we were not meant to seek our inheritance here, in this life anyway. Here, we are strangers and pilgrims. As God purifies and sanctifies us, so that we might be the pure bride of Christ, to be presented spotless in him on the last day, everything that is part of that process is ultimately a blessing, with a glorious end. It is towards that end that we should orient our hopes and desires. How foolish, then, how lacking in understanding, if the deep thought of our hearts when we enter into troubles is one of resentment and disappointment, as if God was doing something wrong? How worldly, if we can only judge things at the level of immediate outward appearance, and not understand (James 1) that we are to count it all joy, because God is working in us to lead us to a perfection beyond our imaginings?

Joy and hope

As I look at some Christians on X or elsewhere, it is evident that they have become defined by fear and anger. The world is changing, their countries are changing, and their expectations of how their life would run (reasonably comfortably and predictably) have been up-ended. They are angry and afraid, and they demand urgent national and/or political action to give them back the previous version of reality that they preferred. And, as I say, this has become a major part of their outlook on life and the world. Moreover, they present this response not as being fear and anger, not as a moral/spiritual failing on their behalf, but as an important Christian principle that other people should follow too.

Well, no thank you. What Christ and his apostles taught us is much better - even their their own political or national situation was much worse.

"You mean we should do nothing, as things fall apart!" No, I don't. I mean that whatever we do, we shouldn't be people whose joy and hope is defined by what's going on in the wider scene of this world, in which we are pilgrims and exiles. If your joy and hope aren't based upon your circumstances in this world, then why behave as if they are? To be sure, the policies of the rulers of this world can cause us plenty of real trouble - Christ and his apostles all knew a fair amount about that too (far more than any of us). But what has that got to do with becoming people defined by fear and anger?