Use of emblems only for anointed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

barry

Well-known member
I have been doing research on the topic of the Memorial and the use of the emblems. To clarify I'm not of the anointed.
Since I grew up in the truth I know all the reasoning of the WT regarding the emblems that it is only for those in the new covenant and that those are only of the anointed.
It's been years now that I have been thinking about this and I would just like the share some scriptures that I found which would indicate different than what the WT teaches.

Order of Memorial events
Luke 22:14-30

14 So when the hour came, he reclined at the table along with the apostles.+ 15 And he said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” 17 And accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, from now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.”+


19 Also, he took a loaf,+ gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body,+ which is to be given in your behalf.+ Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+ 20 Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant+ by virtue of my blood,+ which is to be poured out in your behalf.+


21 “But look! the hand of my betrayer is with me at the table.+ 22 For, indeed, the Son of man is going his way according to what has been determined;+ all the same, woe to that man through whom he is betrayed!”+ 23 So they began to discuss among themselves which one of them could really be about to do this.+


24 However, there also arose a heated dispute among them over which one of them was considered to be the greatest.+ 25 But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors.+ 26 You, though, are not to be that way.+ But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest,+ and the one taking the lead as the one ministering.+ 27 For which one is greater, the one dining* or the one serving? Is it not the one dining?* But I am among you as the one serving.+


28 “However, you are the ones who have stuck with me+ in my trials;+ 29 and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom,+ 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom,+ and sit on thrones+ to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.+

Based on this account (vs 19, 20) there was the passing around of bread and wine (symbol of Jesus body and blood) and the indication that is means the new covenant.

After that the betrayer (Judas) was identified.

After these events (vs28-30) Jesus instituted a covenant for a kingdom with the apostles so they can sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.

This account would indicate the new covenant is not the same as the covenant for a kingdom.
 

barry

Well-known member
144000 sealed out of the of the sons of Israel


Rev 7:4-8

4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, 144,000,+ sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:+



5 Out of the tribe of Judah 12,000 sealed;

out of the tribe of Reuʹben 12,000;

out of the tribe of Gad 12,000;

6 out of the tribe of Ashʹer 12,000;

out of the tribe of Naphʹta·li 12,000;

out of the tribe of Ma·nasʹseh+ 12,000;

7 out of the tribe of Simʹe·on 12,000;

out of the tribe of Leʹvi 12,000;

out of the tribe of Isʹsa·char 12,000;

8 out of the tribe of Zebʹu·lun 12,000;

out of the tribe of Joseph 12,000;

out of the tribe of Benjamin 12,000 sealed.


If the 144000 are sealed out of Israel (symbolic), who represents the others of Israel, which are not part of the 144000?


Great Crowd


Rev 7:9-14


9 After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues,*+ standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes;+ and there were palm branches in their hands.+ 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne,+ and to the Lamb.”+

11 All the angels were standing around the throne and the elders+ and the four living creatures, and they fell facedown before the throne and worshipped God, 12 saying: “Amen! Let the praise and the glory and the wisdom and the thanksgiving and the honor and the power and the strength be to our God forever and ever.+ Amen.”

13 In response one of the elders said to me: “These who are dressed in the white robes,+ who are they and where did they come from?” 14 So right away I said to him: “My lord, you are the one who knows.” And he said to me: “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation,+ and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.+

verse 14 says that the great crowd are those coming out of the great tribulation and washed there robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
 

barry

Well-known member
Heb 8 - New Covenant vs old

The whole chapter of Heb 8 discusses the new covenant.

7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second.+ 8 For he does find fault with the people when he says: “‘Look! The days are coming,’ says Jehovah,* ‘when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 9 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,+ because they did not remain in my covenant, so I stopped caring for them,’ says Jehovah.*

13 In his saying “a new covenant,” he has made the former one obsolete.+ Now what is obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.+


The new covenant comes in place to replace the old covenant which was made when they left Egypt.

The Passover was part of that old covenant with the nation of Israel.


The Israelites were supposed the celebrate the Passover yearly. What about the foreign residents? Those who were no Israelites.


Numbers 9:14

14 “‘And if a foreign resident is residing with you, he should also prepare the Passover sacrifice to Jehovah.+ He should do so according to the statute of the Passover and its set procedure.+ There should exist one statute for you, both for the foreign resident and for the native of the land.’”+


Numbers 15:15,16

15 You who are of the congregation and the foreigner who is residing with you will have one statute. It will be a lasting statute for all your generations. The foreign resident should be the same as you before Jehovah.+ 16 There should be one law and one judicial decision for you and for the foreigner who is residing with you.’”


So foreign residents were supposed to do the Passover just as any Israelite. There was no distinction in the the law on this between a natural Israelite and a foreigner living in Israel.





Jesus is bread from heaven


Jesus spoke these words to a large crowd who was following him.

John 6:26-34

26 Jesus answered them: “Most truly I say to you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate from the loaves and were satisfied.+ 27 Work, not for the food that perishes,+ but for the food that remains for everlasting life,+ which the Son of man will give you; for on this one the Father, God himself, has put his seal of approval.”+

28 So they said to him: “What must we do to carry out the works of God?” 29 In answer Jesus said to them: “This is the work of God, that you exercise faith in the one whom he sent.”+ 30 Then they said to him: “What are you performing as a sign,+ so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you doing? 31 Our forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness,+ just as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”+ 32 Jesus then said to them: “Most truly I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”+ 34 So they said to him: “Lord, always give us this bread.”


John 6:35-40

35 Jesus said to them: “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not get hungry at all, and whoever exercises faith in me will never get thirsty at all.+ 36 But as I said to you, you have even seen me and yet do not believe.+ 37 All those whom the Father gives me will come to me, and I will never drive away the one who comes to me;+ 38 for I have come down from heaven+ to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.+ 39 This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none out of all those whom he has given me,+ but that I should resurrect+ them on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life,+ and I will resurrect+ him on the last day.”


John 6:48-51

48 “I am the bread of life.+ 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet they died.+ 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.”+


This was disturbing to the Jews who were listening and Jesus emphasized this:


John 6:52-58

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.+ 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect+ him on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him.+ 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me.+ 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when your forefathers ate and yet died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”+


Summary


All of the above seems to point that there is no distinction in the use of emblems to indicate if someone is anointed or not.

There are not many references toward not using the emblems.


1 Cor 11:27

27 Therefore, whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord.

But that text is more in the sense that they were making it like a feast to eat and drink instead of showing the proper respect for the occasion, the proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.


There was the trend of the Memorial partakers going down until around 2005 (8524 partakers) which has since than gradually been increasing until the last number: 21150.


I'm looking forward to discussing this more to see if I missed something.
 

Watchman

Moderator
Staff member
Obviously, no human can possibly reign with Christ in heaven just because Jesus made a covenant with them. First, in order to be sharers with Christ in divine nature the prospective Kingdom heirs must be born again. They must be born from the spirit and circumcised in heart. How does that happen? They are taken into the new covenant mediated by Christ.
 

barry

Well-known member
Obviously, no human can possibly reign with Christ in heaven just because Jesus made a covenant with them. First, in order to be sharers with Christ in divine nature the prospective Kingdom heirs must be born again. They must be born from the spirit and circumcised in heart. How does that happen? They are taken into the new covenant mediated by Christ.
So there is no difference between the new covenant and the covenant for a kingdom (Luke 22:29)?
 

Watchman

Moderator
Staff member
So there is no difference between the new covenant and the covenant for a kingdom (Luke 22:29)?
Yes. The new covenant is between Jehovah and the Israel of God. The Kingdom covenant is a subsidiary of it. In the Kingdom covenant, Christ voluntarily agrees to share his kingdom with those whom his Father adopts. It is an extension of Jehovah giving his Kingdom to his son and the son imitates his Father by sharing his kingdom with others.
 
Last edited:

alan ford

Well-known member
This is an interesting topic I have thought about but still have many questions.
There are a few scriptures which mention the breaking of bread in context of meeting together and teaching. And doing it often.
What do you think about these?

Please note that in the NWT breaking of bread is translated as "taking meals". Most other translation use the former.

1 Corinthians 11:20 When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Evening Meal.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.

1 Corinthians 11:33 Consequently, my brothers, when you come together to eat it, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you come together it is not for judgment. But as for the remaining matters, I will put them in order when I get there.

*This implies that eating it was ceremonial, and not to satisfy the hunger.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal [break bread in other translations], Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

Acts 2:42 And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals [breaking of bread], and to prayers.

Acts 2:46 And day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals [broke bread] in different homes and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart,

Interesting how NLT renders this verse: Acts 2:46 (NLT) They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity—

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf.

Acts 20:11 He then went upstairs and began the meal [broke bread] and ate. He continued conversing for quite a while, until daybreak, and then he departed.

To me it seems like remembering and proclaiming Jesus' death was not a once a year event but was done whenever they met together. How do you explain these?
 

Watchman

Moderator
Staff member
This is an interesting topic I have thought about but still have many questions.
There are a few scriptures which mention the breaking of bread in context of meeting together and teaching. And doing it often.
What do you think about these?

Please note that in the NWT breaking of bread is translated as "taking meals". Most other translation use the former.



To me it seems like remembering and proclaiming Jesus' death was not a once a year event but was done whenever they met together. How do you explain these?
The Passover was an annual event. Jesus instituted the memorial of his death on the Passover for a reason. Jesus is the Passover Lamb. Let's not revert to the pope of Babylon's daily wafer ritual.
 

SusanB

Well-known member
This is an interesting topic I have thought about but still have many questions.
There are a few scriptures which mention the breaking of bread in context of meeting together and teaching. And doing it often.
What do you think about these?

Please note that in the NWT breaking of bread is translated as "taking meals". Most other translation use the former.



To me it seems like remembering and proclaiming Jesus' death was not a once a year event but was done whenever they met together. How do you explain these?
Sorry I don’t see your reasoning. All of the highlighted texts could still mean annual and so the context is critical. The context being an annual observance.
 

Medi-tator

Well-known member
This is an interesting topic I have thought about but still have many questions.
There are a few scriptures which mention the breaking of bread in context of meeting together and teaching. And doing it often.
What do you think about these?

Please note that in the NWT breaking of bread is translated as "taking meals". Most other translation use the former.



To me it seems like remembering and proclaiming Jesus' death was not a once a year event but was done whenever they met together. How do you explain these?
I was close to an Italian family while growing up in the L.A. area. Their entire existence seemed to center around food. It was a daily event to have "gatherings" at this home. Whether it be just me and my Italian friend or many others including their huge extended family living nearby, the matriarch was always cooking and shouting to everyone the Italian command to "eat", commonly known as "Manja" (sorry for the obvious incorrect spelling) And of course, there was the ongoing, actually never ending discourse and discussion of the topic of the day, the subject that held everyone's interest, much like the first century Christians likely did at their gatherings.

The scriptures you quote are awesome verses! They do not however evoke the kind of feeling that "gatherings" to discuss spiritual matters with the elders and apostles were highlighted with the ceremonially details akin to the Lord's Evening Meal as was inducted into the Christian way of life by Christ on Passover of 33 CE. So I agree with Robert and Susan as they articulated exactly what I was thinking.

It would be good to remember the cultural differences between us and the first century Christians who had just recently extracted themselves from the very tradition laden Jewish way of life (1 Cor 11:2) and likely who had massive hold-over attitudes and practices which we today might be tempted to interpret as proof that the ceremony of the New Covenant was somehow held every time they "broke bread". I am of the mind that what Paul was talking about, even the verse(s) wherein it sounds celebratory, is talking about the observance of the Lord's Evening Meal when it happens (annually at Passover) and to be respectful of that event, not attending drunk or attending just to get a free meal LOL.

Thank you for your awesome questions Alan! I rarely get excited enough to contribute, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis, ah, oh, sorry, wrong commercial.

Med
 
Last edited:

White Stone

Well-known member
Heb 8 - New Covenant vs old

The whole chapter of Heb 8 discusses the new covenant.




The new covenant comes in place to replace the old covenant which was made when they left Egypt.

The Passover was part of that old covenant with the nation of Israel.


The Israelites were supposed the celebrate the Passover yearly. What about the foreign residents? Those who were no Israelites.


Numbers 9:14




Numbers 15:15,16




So foreign residents were supposed to do the Passover just as any Israelite. There was no distinction in the the law on this between a natural Israelite and a foreigner living in Israel.





Jesus is bread from heaven


Jesus spoke these words to a large crowd who was following him.

John 6:26-34




John 6:35-40




John 6:48-51




This was disturbing to the Jews who were listening and Jesus emphasized this:


John 6:52-58




Summary


All of the above seems to point that there is no distinction in the use of emblems to indicate if someone is anointed or not.

There are not many references toward not using the emblems.


1 Cor 11:27



But that text is more in the sense that they were making it like a feast to eat and drink instead of showing the proper respect for the occasion, the proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.


There was the trend of the Memorial partakers going down until around 2005 (8524 partakers) which has since than gradually been increasing until the last number: 21150.


I'm looking forward to discussing this more to see if I missed something.
You forgot to mention that in order for a foreign resident to partake of the passover, he must be circumcised first.

Exodus 12:48 “If a foreigner resides with you and he wants to celebrate the Passover to Jehovah, every male of his must be circumcised. Then he may come near to celebrate it, and he will become like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised man may eat of it.”
In order for a person to enter the New Covenant, one must be circumcised first in spirit also.(John 1:13; 3:5; Romans 2:28; Philippians 3:3)
 

alan ford

Well-known member
Sorry I don’t see your reasoning. All of the highlighted texts could still mean annual and so the context is critical. The context being an annual observance.
I was curious because of the context. Nowhere does it say that it was annual. Every time breaking bread (or taking meals in NWT) is mentioned it's not in the connection with the passover, otherwise it would be mentioned. Luke 2:41 for example mentions an annual observance: Now his parents were accustomed to go from year to year to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. Moreover, prior to Jesus' death there seem to not be any mention of this practice of breaking bread in the Greek scriptures. Why I'm curious is because there were lot of things with Jesus' actions which broke with the traditions, where he showed that it was impossible for people to fully keep the law, because being so rigid with keeping the letter of the law, they broke the law where they were supposed to love their neighbor. While he himself fulfilled the law, he broke with the traditions and ritualistic ways they were observed in, healing on Sabbath being one example. To me it doesn't seem that Jesus was a tradition type of guy. I hope this clarifies my reasoning. I'm just trying to understand scriptures better.
 
Last edited:

alan ford

Well-known member
I was close to an Italian family while growing up in the L.A. area. Their entire existence seemed to center around food. It was a daily event to have "gatherings" at this home. Whether it be just me and my Italian friend or many others including their huge extended family living nearby, the matriarch was always cooking and shouting to everyone the Italian command to "eat", commonly known as "Manja" (sorry for the obvious incorrect spelling) And of course, there was the ongoing, actually never ending discourse and discussion of the topic of the day, the subject that held everyone's interest, much like the first century Christians likely did at their gatherings.

The scriptures you quote are awesome verses! They do not however evoke the kind of feeling that "gatherings" to discuss spiritual matters with the elders and apostles were highlighted with the ceremonially details akin to the Lord's Evening Meal as was inducted into the Christian way of life by Christ on Passover of 33 CE. So I agree with Robert and Susan as they articulated exactly what I was thinking.

It would be good to remember the cultural differences between us and the first century Christians who had just recently extracted themselves from the very tradition laden Jewish way of life (1 Cor 11:2) and likely who had massive hold-over attitudes and practices which we today might be tempted to interpret as proof that the ceremony of the New Covenant was somehow held every time they "broke bread". I am of the mind that what Paul was talking about, even the verse(s) wherein it sounds celebratory, is talking about the observance of the Lord's Evening Meal when it happens (annually at Passover) and to be respectful of that event, not attending drunk or attending just to get a free meal LOL.

Thank you for your awesome questions Alan! I rarely get excited enough to contribute, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis, ah, oh, sorry, wrong commercial.

Med
Thanks for your reply Med, it makes sense to me. It's just the little details like when Paul says "whenever you eat", or as in Acts 2:42 when it says "they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals [breaking of bread], and to prayers" and also Acts 2:46 "day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals [broke bread] in different homes ". So it just made me think about why is this mentioned in these contexts, and never in the context of the passover. Also, probably the main reason for me to think in this direction is that Jesus' death was a pretty big deal, the biggest, warranting proclaiming it as often as possible. That's just how it connects in my mind, right or wrong.
 

Medi-tator

Well-known member
probably the main reason for me to think in this direction is that Jesus' death was a pretty big deal, the biggest, warranting proclaiming it as often as possible
Let us know how you put that into practice. It must be more than a simple prayer of appreciation for the meal, yes? You will have a handy stash of unleavened bread and some nice red wine on hand for ritualistic partaking? Jesus is definitely a big deal! A multiple acknowledgement daily deal for me with or without the grub. I am just not seeing what you are seeing my brother. Great stuff though and thank you for discussing it!
 

alan ford

Well-known member
Let us know how you put that into practice. It must be more than a simple prayer of appreciation for the meal, yes? You will have a handy stash of unleavened bread and some nice red wine on hand for ritualistic partaking? Jesus is definitely a big deal! A multiple acknowledgement daily deal for me with or without the grub. I am just not seeing what you are seeing my brother. Great stuff though and thank you for discussing it!
Ok I thought about the"whenever" part where Paul was reminding them that it was not about food but what it represents. So my reasoning is that since Christ’s death is a big deal it’s important to physically eat the bread and drink the wine as to integrate within us the connection with the eating symbolic flesh and blood of Christ. To act out physically those symbols and reinforce both spiritual and fleshly aspects, for we are flesh after all. Christ should be foremost in us so doing it repeatedly not only shows appreciation but also strengthens our faith in him. Now when I say often I don’t mean so often to the point of triviality as they do in Christendom. Christ's last supper was a simple meal and not a ceremony, so my inital comment for 1 Corinthians 11:33 about the meal being ceremonial, I didn't mean as in celebration but more symbolic. My impression is that in JW world the focus is on the ceremony of it more than on the emblems themselves. They just pass by you. My thinking is very conflicted on this "issue."
 

Patricia

Well-known member
Here's a stupid, trivial query: in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the accounts of the last supper, they have Jesus eating the Passover as this last supper and dying on what would still be Passover. But John has him dying the day before, on the day of preparation. Yet they all agree that he died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday. Again not that it matters, but any ideas?🙃🤔
 

Watchman

Moderator
Staff member
Here's a stupid, trivial query: in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the accounts of the last supper, they have Jesus eating the Passover as this last supper and dying on what would still be Passover. But John has him dying the day before, on the day of preparation. Yet they all agree that he died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday. Again not that it matters, but any ideas?🙃🤔
 

SusanB

Well-known member
Thanks for your reply Med, it makes sense to me. It's just the little details like when Paul says "whenever you eat", or as in Acts 2:42 when it says "they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to associating together, to the taking of meals [breaking of bread], and to prayers" and also Acts 2:46 "day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals [broke bread] in different homes ". So it just made me think about why is this mentioned in these contexts, and never in the context of the passover. Also, probably the main reason for me to think in this direction is that Jesus' death was a pretty big deal, the biggest, warranting proclaiming it as often as possible. That's just how it connects in my mind, right or wrong.
Once Jesus instituted the Memorial it was no longer the Passover, but the Passover was annual and so the Memorial of Jesus death would have to be annual as well even if they don’t mention it. The Passover was really symbolically pointing to Jesus sacrifice. Memorials are most often annual events. Acts 2:42 is not the Memorial but it is literally eating meals when they were associating. But 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 is referring to Jesus instituting a “remembrance” or Memorial and so I think it would be understood to be annual, as memorials most often are and it was replacing the Passover as an annual event. So, then they are told to “keep doing this” meaning the annual observance and then it immediately says the “whenever you do this” meaning whenever you eat the unleavened bread and drink the wine on the Memorial it is to remember Jesus sacrifice. At least that is what makes sense to me.

I honestly think that celebrating any event more often than once a year would have the tendency to make the celebration not as important and make it more mundane. We use the term “everyday” sometimes to describe people or things with the meaning that it is just ordinary and not especially interesting or unusual.
 

Patricia

Well-known member
I must be really thick today. That made it worse.🥴 Wait maybe,
Ok so Nisan 15 starts a festival to Jehovah, the festival of unleavened bread. And that would have been the festival the Jewish leaders were talking about when they said not to seize Jesus during the festival. They weren't talking about Passover. Passover isn't part of that. I wasn't thinking about that. I guess I always assumed it was a combined event that lasted a week. So, Passover wasn't a holy day when there wouldn't have been a trial or execution? Huh. So did they have leavened bread on Passover? 🤔
I'll shut up now🤣😂
 

alan ford

Well-known member
Once Jesus instituted the Memorial it was no longer the Passover, but the Passover was annual and so the Memorial of Jesus death would have to be annual as well even if they don’t mention it. The Passover was really symbolically pointing to Jesus sacrifice. Memorials are most often annual events. Acts 2:42 is not the Memorial but it is literally eating meals when they were associating. But 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 is referring to Jesus instituting a “remembrance” or Memorial and so I think it would be understood to be annual, as memorials most often are and it was replacing the Passover as an annual event. So, then they are told to “keep doing this” meaning the annual observance and then it immediately says the “whenever you do this” meaning whenever you eat the unleavened bread and drink the wine on the Memorial it is to remember Jesus sacrifice. At least that is what makes sense to me.

I honestly think that celebrating any event more often than once a year would have the tendency to make the celebration not as important and make it more mundane. We use the term “everyday” sometimes to describe people or things with the meaning that it is just ordinary and not especially interesting or unusual.
Hi Susan, I see your point. It makes sense, but the Bible doesn't mention specifically that this is the case. It is based on "if this then that" logic as in, if Jesus is the passover lamb and he was killed on passover, then it means that it is a replacement for passover. Jews observed the passover as a reminder of what happened in Egypt. The symbolic part only got revealed later on, during Jesus' time. We have no specific mention whether this is a "replacement". To me it doesn't read like Jesus "instituted" anything. In order to do that we have to read into the text aka eisegesis. He simply told them to do this in remembrance of him. As for taking meals in the scriptures, it strikes me as odd how it becomes a thing all of a sudden when there is no mention of that practice before Jesus death.
Regarding 1 Cor. 11, in verses 25 and 26, most translations including the reference NWT, instead of "whenever you eat" render it "as often as you eat".
Another interesting thing is that the annual observation of memorial seems to be a relatively recent understanding. Or as WT says, readjustment. I'm not sure when this readjustment took place. But this article talks about that a bit:
Many newly gathered ones of the “other sheep” used to celebrate Mass or Communion, the frequency and manner of celebration being governed by the beliefs of the particular religious organization to which they belonged. Now, however, these have come to realize that the Lord’s Evening Meal should be celebrated only once each year. Why is this so? Well, the Jewish Passover was celebrated just once each year, and Jesus started the Memorial on that same Passover night, Nisan 14. w85 2/15 pp. 15-21
This article also says that certain features of the passover were fulfilled in Jesus, but that it's not strictly the type of Lord's evening meal.

Finally how can you say you observe if you don’t eat the emblems? Jesus said "whoever eats…" If eating represents acceptance of Christ’s flesh and blood as a means of salvation what does passing them only represent? I think these are valid questions. WT says about other sheep, "they now find their situation “readjusted” to that of onlookers." Which doesn't find any support in the scriptures. I've learned to question all JW doctrines and take with a grain of salt everything that WT teaches because they use eisegesis a lot in their interpretations, so please forgive me as I don't mean to push my understanding as being the only correct one, I just want to make sure of the scriptures.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top