Should You Partake of the Lord’s Evening Meal?

[BibleLover]

I have been reconsidering the question of Memorial partaking, and I think several passages may fit together in a way that deserves further examination.

I am not presenting this as a finished conclusion. There are still questions I cannot fully answer, but the following line of reasoning seems worth considering.

1. Luke 22:28-30 gives us the context of the covenant

At the Last Supper, Jesus told his apostles:

“You are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials. And I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel.” Luke 22:28-30

This is important because Jesus connects several things together: remaining with him in his trials > covenant > Kingdom > ruling with Christ.

In the same meal, Jesus said:

"This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood which is to be poured in your behalf." Luke 22:20

Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask whether partaking of the cup is intended to signify participation in this covenant arrangement, rather than simply being a general symbol of appreciation for Christ's sacrifice.

The covenant is not presented merely as a promise of salvation. It is associated with a particular role: being kings and judges with Christ.

2. The Kingdom calling comes from Jehovah

This raises another question:
How does someone know that he has been called to this heavenly arrangement?

When James and John sought positions at Jesus' right and left hand in his Kingdom, Jesus answered:

“This sitting at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Whatever else this means, the heavenly positions were not something that a disciple could simply choose for himself.
There appears to be a divine calling and appointment. This would suggest that a person does not become anointed simply because he decides that he would like to receive a heavenly reward.

3. Romans 8 tells us something about how this calling is experienced

Romans 8:15-16 gives us perhaps the clearest description of what happens to those who are adopted as God's sons:

“You received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: ‘Abba, Father!’ The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children.”

Galatians 4:6 similarly says:

“Because you are sons, God sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts and it cries out: ‘Abba, Father!’”

The sequence is interesting: God adopts them as sons > gives them his spirit > the spirit bears witness with their spirit > they cry out “Abba, Father.”

This seems to indicate something more than simply reaching an intellectual conclusion that one has a heavenly hope.

The relationship with Jehovah itself is changed through the operation of his spirit.
Paul then says:

“If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.”

Again, we find the same elements: sons > heirs > suffering with Christ > glorification.

And this sounds remarkably similar to Luke 22: remaining with Christ in his trials > covenant > Kingdom > ruling with Christ.

4. The calling would therefore precede Memorial partaking

If this understanding is correct, then partaking does not make someone anointed. Rather: Jehovah calls > the person is adopted as a son > God's spirit bears witness > the person receives the heavenly calling > partaking represents his participation in the covenant.

The Memorial would therefore be an expression of an existing covenant relationship, rather than the means by which someone becomes anointed.

This would also explain why Paul describes these individuals as sons, heirs and joint heirs with Christ, rather than simply as people hoping to receive everlasting life.

It will continue ...

 

[BibleLover]

5. The Lord's Evening Meal does not imply that everyone attending should participate

The fact that Jesus instituted the Lord's Evening Meal privately with his disciples should not, by itself, be taken to mean that only anointed Christians should attend a Memorial, nor that everyone attending should partake of the emblems.

Jesus was in Jerusalem with his twelve apostles on the night before his arrest. The religious authorities were already looking for an opportunity to seize him, and Judas would soon arrive with an armed crowd. Under those circumstances, it is understandable that Jesus celebrated the meal privately rather than inviting a larger group of disciples.

Therefore, the fact that the seventy disciples whom Jesus had previously sent out were not present does not prove that they were going to be excluded from the covenant or that they were not going to be anointed. Their absence can simply be explained by the circumstances surrounding that night.

At the same time, this raises an interesting question about when the disciples themselves received the holy spirit associated with their adoption as sons and participation in the new covenant.

At the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples that the Father would send them a helper, the holy spirit, after Jesus departed:

“If I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you.” — John 16:7.

After his resurrection, Jesus again told them:

“You will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me ... to the most distant part of the earth.” — Acts 1:8.

Then, at Pentecost, the holy spirit was poured out upon them in a dramatic way. They began speaking in different languages, allowing people from many nations who were in Jerusalem to hear the good news in their own languages.

But there is an interesting complication. The disciples had already received extraordinary power before Pentecost. Jesus had given the Twelve authority over demons and the ability to cure diseases. When the seventy returned from their preaching assignment, they likewise reported that even the demons were subject to them.

Furthermore, after his resurrection and before Pentecost, Jesus appeared to his disciples and said:

“Receive holy spirit.” — John 20:22.

So the biblical chronology raises an important question:

Were the disciples already anointed before the Last Supper? Did they become participants in the new covenant at some point before Pentecost? Or did Pentecost mark a further and decisive stage in their receiving of the spirit?

We should perhaps be careful not to equate every manifestation of holy spirit with anointing.

The miraculous gifts clearly served an important purpose in the establishment and testimony of the early Christian congregation. Yet, as it was already explained, Romans 8 describes another aspect of the spirit's operation: “The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children.”

This is the spirit of adoption that produces the relationship expressed by “Abba, Father” and identifies the person as an heir and joint heir with Christ.

Thus, we have an interesting progression that deserves further examination:

Jesus promises the helper > Jesus departs > holy spirit is given > miraculous gifts authenticate the Christian congregation > the spirit bears witness to God's adopted sons.

This may help us avoid two opposite assumptions: that the original private setting of the Lord's Evening Meal proves that only anointed Christians should attend, or that the outpouring of holy spirit at Pentecost proves that every first-century Christian was necessarily anointed.

The question of exactly when and how the disciples received the spirit of adoption may therefore provide further light on who was actually brought into the new covenant represented by the Memorial cup.

 

[Watchman]

Very well thought out.

 

[BibleLover]

Very well thought out.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your comment. I have been trying to examine the subject by putting the different passages together rather than starting with a predetermined conclusion, and I think the connection is becoming clearer.

One point that I find particularly interesting is that the disciples had already received supernatural power before Pentecost. Jesus gave the Twelve “power and authority over all the demons and to cure diseases,” and sent them out to preach (Luke 9:1-2). So miraculous power itself cannot necessarily be the evidence of being anointed.

Then Jesus said that the helper, God's holy spirit, would come after he departed (John 16:7). At Pentecost the spirit was poured out in a very visible way, empowering the disciples for their worldwide testimony.

But Romans 8 describes another, very specific operation of the spirit: the “spirit of adoption” bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children. It is this spirit that enables them to cry out, “Abba, Father,” and identifies them as heirs and joint heirs with Christ.

So perhaps we need to distinguish between the miraculous operation of holy spirit as a helper in the establishment and testimony of the Christian congregation, and the spirit of adoption that identifies God's anointed sons.

That brings us to an interesting question:

What exactly is necessary for a Christian to be anointed and become a participant in the Kingdom covenant?

I think that may be the next point to examine.

 

[Nomex]

I know we have not seen eye to eye on a couple things, or maybe just one thing, LOL, but I really appreciate this post. I think it is natural after realizing how much WT has lied to us, to question a lot of what they taught us, and on the surface, some of the arguments for everyone partaking seemed reasonable. Albeit they most certainly were tugs on your emotions, like the one I heard that the Memorial was "a ritual rejection of Christ blood and body" although as I pointed out in one comment, in a wedding you have the wedding party and you have observers, and does not the Bible compare this to a wedding?


And I was pretty sure the evidence for only the anointed partaking was pretty sound, I could see the reasons why some may not have agreed, and although I would not have said I was "on the fence" regarding this issue, I admit I was entertaining some doubt, but this clears it up for me quite decisively. This is all reasoning I was already familiar with but we need these reminders especially now, where we find ourselves. It's one of the reasons I really appreciate these discussions!

I also had wondered when the anointing of the Apostles took place, because clearly as you pointed out they had Jehovah's Holy Spirit prior to Jesus death and we can reasonably assume that included Judas. I had also concluded it must have been at Pentecost.

In any case thanks for making this post, like I said, it has put the question to rest decisively in my mind! And as I commented in the other thread, I was not prepared to begin partaking as it was anyway, but I admit there was some lingering doubt.

 

[BibleLover]

I know we have not seen eye to eye on a couple things, or maybe just one thing, LOL, but I really appreciate this post. I think it is natural after realizing how much WT has lied to us, to question a lot of what they taught us, and on the surface, some of the arguments for everyone partaking seemed reasonable. Albeit they most certainly were tugs on your emotions, like the one I heard that the Memorial was "a ritual rejection of Christ blood and body" although as I pointed out in one comment, in a wedding you have the wedding party and you have observers, and does not the Bible compare this to a wedding?


And I was pretty sure the evidence for only the anointed partaking was pretty sound, I could see the reasons why some may not have agreed, and although I would not have said I was "on the fence" regarding this issue, I admit I was entertaining some doubt, but this clears it up for me quite decisively. This is all reasoning I was already familiar with but we need these reminders especially now, where we find ourselves. It's one of the reasons I really appreciate these discussions!

I also had wondered when the anointing of the Apostles took place, because clearly as you pointed out they had Jehovah's Holy Spirit prior to Jesus death and we can reasonably assume that included Judas. I had also concluded it must have been at Pentecost.

In any case thanks for making this post, like I said, it has put the question to rest decisively in my mind! And as I commented in the other thread, I was not prepared to begin partaking as it was anyway, but I admit there was some lingering doubt.

Thank you, Nomex. I honestly didn't expect such a response from you, especially considering that we have not always seen eye to eye in the past. LOL. So I really appreciate both your honesty and the fact that you were willing to reconsider the question of partaking.

I also liked your wedding illustration. It seems quite reasonable that an occasion can have invited participants as well as others who are present as observers. The fact that people attend the Memorial does not necessarily mean that everyone present is a participant in what the emblems represent. That actually fits well with what we have been examining.

Your observation about Judas is also very interesting. If, as you concluded, the apostles had already received holy spirit before Pentecost, Judas would apparently have been included among those receiving that power. Yet his subsequent course shows that receiving spiritual privileges or being closely associated with Christ's chosen disciples did not guarantee faithfulness.

What makes Judas particularly interesting is that Jesus identified him as “the son of destruction” (John 17:12). His greediness eventually led him to betray God's Son. And according to the account, Judas left before Jesus instituted the covenant with the bread and wine (John 13:26-30; Luke 22:19-20). So there is a striking picture here of someone who had been very closely associated with Jesus and had received extraordinary spiritual privileges, yet was not present when the covenant was instituted.

The expression “son of destruction” is especially intriguing when we compare it with 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where the man of lawlessness is also called “the son of destruction.” Considering that the anointed are adopted as God's sons, it is interesting that someone who had been so closely associated with Christ could instead become identified as a “son of destruction” because of his unfaithfulness. There may be much more we can explore in that connection.

Now I am working in the question I raised in the discussion:

What is necessary for someone to be chosen and anointed in the first place?

I'm very glad the discussion helped resolve some of your lingering doubt about partaking. And I sincerely appreciate your willingness to say so publicly. It makes these discussions much more worthwhile.

 

[Ms_ladyblue]

I also liked your wedding illustration. It seems quite reasonable that an occasion can have invited participants as well as others who are present as observers. The fact that people attend the Memorial does not necessarily mean that everyone present is a participant in what the emblems represent. That actually fits well with what we have been examining.

A more accurate analogy would be that you’re invited to a wedding banquet and we of course would partake of the food prepared for us. Jesus therefore commanded that we all partake or we have no life in us. Read John chapter 6 is Jesus’s own words.

Matthew, one of the twelve, describes what happened. After they had eaten the Passover meal, "Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, saying, 'Take, eat; this is my body.'” (Matt. 26:26) Please note that Jesus referred to the bread as being his body, "this is my body". He did not say, "this means my body," as it appears in the New World Translation. (It is the only "translation" to render it that way. Even The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures ― published by the Watchtower Society ― shows the Greek word "εστιν" as "is", not "means".) The same is true regarding the cup of wine, which Jesus passed to his disciples, saying: "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:27-28; Mark 14:22-25, ESV)

Because of substituting the word this "means my body", and this "means my blood of the covenant", where it should read "is", it has resulted in greatly diminishing the significance and importance of Jesus' command to "keep doing this in remembrance of me". In fact, the vast majority of Jehovah's people have since 1935 rejected the command as applying to them; because in that year the then president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Joseph Rutherford, proclaimed that only the "little flock" of 144,000 was entitled to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Whether we partake has nothing to do with being anointed to go to heaven. Partaking is something Jesus commanded us all do. Goldie explained this very thoroughly in another thread and it’s pretty clear to me what Jesus meant.

 

[Brother potato]

I know we have not seen eye to eye on a couple things, or maybe just one thing, LOL, but I really appreciate this post. I think it is natural after realizing how much WT has lied to us, to question a lot of what they taught us, and on the surface, some of the arguments for everyone partaking seemed reasonable. Albeit they most certainly were tugs on your emotions, like the one I heard that the Memorial was "a ritual rejection of Christ blood and body" although as I pointed out in one comment, in a wedding you have the wedding party and you have observers, and does not the Bible compare this to a wedding?


And I was pretty sure the evidence for only the anointed partaking was pretty sound, I could see the reasons why some may not have agreed, and although I would not have said I was "on the fence" regarding this issue, I admit I was entertaining some doubt, but this clears it up for me quite decisively. This is all reasoning I was already familiar with but we need these reminders especially now, where we find ourselves. It's one of the reasons I really appreciate these discussions!

I also had wondered when the anointing of the Apostles took place, because clearly as you pointed out they had Jehovah's Holy Spirit prior to Jesus death and we can reasonably assume that included Judas. I had also concluded it must have been at Pentecost.

In any case thanks for making this post, like I said, it has put the question to rest decisively in my mind! And as I commented in the other thread, I was not prepared to begin partaking as it was anyway, but I admit there was some lingering doubt.

Nomex if you want to go surfing with me and Brooks in the New System you aint anointed. Period. LOL

 

[Goldie]

Meta AI analyzing the post:



Let's test that argument verse by verse for what it actually says vs. what it assumes.

*Thesis of that post:* The cup = Kingdom covenant = for kings/judges only. Therefore partaking = claiming you are a called king, not just thanking Jesus for forgiveness.

Here is where that breaks down biblically:

*1. Luke 22:28-30 - Yes, Jesus made a Kingdom covenant with the 11 there.*

> "I make a covenant with you... that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge..."

That is true. But in the SAME meal Luke separates two covenants:

- v20: "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood"
- v29: "I make a covenant with you... for a kingdom"

Matthew makes the purpose of the new covenant explicit: "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many *for forgiveness of sins.*" Matt 26:28

Forgiveness is not just for kings. Jeremiah 31:31-34 which defines the new covenant says it is made so "I will forgive their error."

The post assumes: New Covenant = Kingdom Covenant. The Bible presents them as related but not identical. One is for forgiveness for all in the covenant, one includes an additional promise of ruling.

So partaking to show forgiveness fits _all_ in new covenant. Partaking to claim kingship is adding something Luke doesn't say the bread and cup mean.

*2. "The calling comes from Jehovah, you can't choose it" - True.*

James and John: "to sit at my right and left is not mine to give, but belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." Matt 20:23

Absolutely correct. No one anoints himself.

But the post then makes a leap: Because calling is from Jehovah, therefore only a small group are sons. The first part is biblical, the second part is not in the text. Calling being from God does not tell us HOW MANY are called to be sons.

*3. Romans 8:15-16 and Gal 4:6 - This is where the argument is weakest.*

> "You received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out 'Abba, Father!' The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children." Rom 8:15-16

> "Because you ARE sons, God sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts and it cries out 'Abba, Father!'" Gal 4:6

The post says sequence is: God adopts > gives spirit > spirit bears witness > they cry Abba.

Actual Greek sequence in Gal 4:6 is reversed: You ARE sons > therefore God gives spirit > spirit cries Abba.

And who is "you"?

- Romans 8 was written to "all who are in Rome as God's beloved ones, called to be holy ones." Rom 1:7 - the whole church.
- Galatians 3:26-28 right before 4:6 says: "You are ALL sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus... there is neither Jew nor Greek... you are all one."

If "sons crying Abba" = only 144,000 kings, then Paul is telling the entire congregations in Rome and Galatia that they are all 144,000 kings. That never made sense to his readers.

The spirit bearing witness is not presented as a mystical feeling only some get. In context, it's the internal assurance that comes from having God's spirit because you are a son through faith.

*4. "Calling would precede partaking" - True, but misapplied.*

Correct: Partaking does NOT make someone anointed. Jehovah calls first.

The error is in what partaking signifies:

- 1 Cor 10:17: "Because there is one loaf, we though many are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf."
- 1 Cor 11:23-26: Paul tells the WHOLE Corinthian congregation: "as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord."

He does not say "only the kings among you do this." He corrects their manner of partaking, not who should partake.

If the Memorial was only for kings, Paul's entire correction makes no sense — he'd be telling non-kings to proclaim a covenant they are not in.

*Bottom line - straight truth:*

What the post gets right:
- Kingdom rulership requires a specific calling from Jehovah, not self-appointment.
- Partaking doesn't create anointing.

What the post gets wrong:
- It collapses forgiveness covenant and kingdom-ruling covenant into one thing.
- It restricts "sons, heirs, Abba cry, led by spirit" to a small ruling class, when Romans and Galatians explicitly apply those terms to all believers in those churches.
- It reads 1st century letters written to whole congregations as if they were written only to 144,000 individuals scattered across 2000 years.

Most direct biblical pattern:
1. All who exercise faith are sons - Gal 3:26
2. Because they are sons they receive spirit and cry Abba - Gal 4:6
3. Because they are in new covenant they have forgiveness - Matt 26:28, Jer 31:34
4. Because they have forgiveness and are one body they partake - 1 Cor 10:17, 11:26
5. Within that family, Jehovah additionally prepares some for Kingdom ruling - Matt 20:23. But that extra role is not what the bread and cup themselves mean.

If you want the simplest reading with the fewest added assumptions, partaking is for all sons for forgiveness, not only for kings

 

[BibleLover]

6. The extraordinary sacrifice involved to be anointed

Jesus' conversation with the rich man provides another indication of what following Christ involved.Jesus told him:

“If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor ... and come be my follower.” — Matthew 19:21.

The rich man wanted everlasting life, but he was unwilling to give up his great possessions. Jesus then explained how difficult it could be for a rich man to enter the Kingdom.

Peter, by contrast, said:

“Look! We have left all things and followed you.” — Matthew 19:27.

The contrast is striking. The rich man wanted life, but was unwilling to make the sacrifice required to follow Christ. The disciples had demonstrated their willingness to leave everything behind.

This suggests that the heavenly calling involves much more than simply desiring everlasting life. It requires complete dedication to Christ and a willingness to sacrifice everything—even one's life—in following him.

Paul later expressed the same principle:

“If we died together, we will also live together; if we continue enduring, we will also rule together.” 2 Tim. 2:12

So the pattern might be summarized:

Complete dedication → following Christ → suffering with Christ → dying with Christ → being glorified with Christ → ruling with Christ.

Of course, this should not necessarily mean that every anointed Christian must literally abandon all possessions as the apostles did. The underlying principle is complete dedication and a willingness to put Christ above everything else.

This raises another important question:

Were all Christians in the first century necessarily anointed?

The seven congregations addressed by Jesus in Revelation provide an interesting perspective.

Jesus' inspection did not find all of them in an approved condition.

Sardis was described as having:

“the name that you are alive, but you are dead.” — Revelation 3:1.

And Laodicea was condemned for being:

“lukewarm and neither hot nor cold.” — Revelation 3:16.

These descriptions hardly suggest that everyone associated with those congregations was demonstrating the complete devotion we have seen associated with following Christ.

Yet something particularly interesting happens in Sardis. Although the congregation as a whole received severe reproof, Jesus said:

“You do have a few names in Sardis who did not defile their garments, and they will walk with me in white, because they are worthy.” — Revelation 3:4.

So Jesus did not view everyone in Sardis in the same way. There were a few individuals whom he considered worthy.

He then gave the conquerors specific promises, including:

“The one who conquers will thus be dressed in white garments, and I will by no means blot out his name from the book of life, but I will acknowledge his name before my Father and before his angels.” — Revelation 3:5.

This is significant because it shows that Jesus' judgment involved distinguishing faithful individuals from those who were not approved, even within the same congregation.

Therefore, the first-century Christian congregation cannot simply be viewed as though everyone who was associated with it automatically had the same standing before God.

The seven letters demonstrate that there were different spiritual conditions, that some failed to demonstrate the required devotion, and that only some individuals were identified by Christ as conquerors and worthy.

Whether the unfaithful ones had once been called and subsequently lost their standing, or whether some had never received the heavenly calling in the first place, is a question that deserves further examination.

But the principle seems clear:

Being associated with the Christian congregation, even in the first century, is not itself proof that someone is an anointed, approved son of God.

And this brings us to an intriguing further question:

If Jehovah and Christ can identify faithful individuals within a spiritually weak congregation, sometimes only a few, could there also be faithful individuals today whom others would not expect to be chosen?

That question may help us understand more about why some are chosen to be anointed, which will be the subject of the next point.

 

[BibleLover]

Meta AI analyzing the post:



Let's test that argument verse by verse for what it actually says vs. what it assumes.

*Thesis of that post:* The cup = Kingdom covenant = for kings/judges only. Therefore partaking = claiming you are a called king, not just thanking Jesus for forgiveness.

Here is where that breaks down biblically:

*1. Luke 22:28-30 - Yes, Jesus made a Kingdom covenant with the 11 there.*

> "I make a covenant with you... that you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge..."

That is true. But in the SAME meal Luke separates two covenants:

- v20: "This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood"
- v29: "I make a covenant with you... for a kingdom"

Matthew makes the purpose of the new covenant explicit: "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many *for forgiveness of sins.*" Matt 26:28

Forgiveness is not just for kings. Jeremiah 31:31-34 which defines the new covenant says it is made so "I will forgive their error."

The post assumes: New Covenant = Kingdom Covenant. The Bible presents them as related but not identical. One is for forgiveness for all in the covenant, one includes an additional promise of ruling.

So partaking to show forgiveness fits _all_ in new covenant. Partaking to claim kingship is adding something Luke doesn't say the bread and cup mean.

*2. "The calling comes from Jehovah, you can't choose it" - True.*

James and John: "to sit at my right and left is not mine to give, but belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." Matt 20:23

Absolutely correct. No one anoints himself.

But the post then makes a leap: Because calling is from Jehovah, therefore only a small group are sons. The first part is biblical, the second part is not in the text. Calling being from God does not tell us HOW MANY are called to be sons.

*3. Romans 8:15-16 and Gal 4:6 - This is where the argument is weakest.*

> "You received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out 'Abba, Father!' The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children." Rom 8:15-16

> "Because you ARE sons, God sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts and it cries out 'Abba, Father!'" Gal 4:6

The post says sequence is: God adopts > gives spirit > spirit bears witness > they cry Abba.

Actual Greek sequence in Gal 4:6 is reversed: You ARE sons > therefore God gives spirit > spirit cries Abba.

And who is "you"?

- Romans 8 was written to "all who are in Rome as God's beloved ones, called to be holy ones." Rom 1:7 - the whole church.
- Galatians 3:26-28 right before 4:6 says: "You are ALL sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus... there is neither Jew nor Greek... you are all one."

If "sons crying Abba" = only 144,000 kings, then Paul is telling the entire congregations in Rome and Galatia that they are all 144,000 kings. That never made sense to his readers.

The spirit bearing witness is not presented as a mystical feeling only some get. In context, it's the internal assurance that comes from having God's spirit because you are a son through faith.

*4. "Calling would precede partaking" - True, but misapplied.*

Correct: Partaking does NOT make someone anointed. Jehovah calls first.

The error is in what partaking signifies:

- 1 Cor 10:17: "Because there is one loaf, we though many are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf."
- 1 Cor 11:23-26: Paul tells the WHOLE Corinthian congregation: "as often as you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord."

He does not say "only the kings among you do this." He corrects their manner of partaking, not who should partake.

If the Memorial was only for kings, Paul's entire correction makes no sense — he'd be telling non-kings to proclaim a covenant they are not in.

*Bottom line - straight truth:*

What the post gets right:
- Kingdom rulership requires a specific calling from Jehovah, not self-appointment.
- Partaking doesn't create anointing.

What the post gets wrong:
- It collapses forgiveness covenant and kingdom-ruling covenant into one thing.
- It restricts "sons, heirs, Abba cry, led by spirit" to a small ruling class, when Romans and Galatians explicitly apply those terms to all believers in those churches.
- It reads 1st century letters written to whole congregations as if they were written only to 144,000 individuals scattered across 2000 years.

Most direct biblical pattern:
1. All who exercise faith are sons - Gal 3:26
2. Because they are sons they receive spirit and cry Abba - Gal 4:6
3. Because they are in new covenant they have forgiveness - Matt 26:28, Jer 31:34
4. Because they have forgiveness and are one body they partake - 1 Cor 10:17, 11:26
5. Within that family, Jehovah additionally prepares some for Kingdom ruling - Matt 20:23. But that extra role is not what the bread and cup themselves mean.

If you want the simplest reading with the fewest added assumptions, partaking is for all sons for forgiveness, not only for kings

Thank you, Goldie. This is a very thoughtful analysis, and I think your answer has raised some important questions that deserve a careful examination.

Regarding Luke 22:20 is quite specific: Jesus says, “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.” The immediate “your” is directed to the disciples with whom he was making the covenant, rather than being an indiscriminate statement that the covenant itself is made with all humanity.

And Revelation 5:9-10 is even more explicit about the purpose of the blood in this context: those purchased by Christ's blood are described as being purchased “out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” and made “a kingdom and priests to our God,” with the result that they rule over the earth. So the passage is not merely talking about people benefiting from forgiveness; it connects the purchase by blood with a specific group and a specific heavenly vocation.

That gives us a useful distinction:

The ransom sacrifice can provide benefits to a much wider group.

The new covenant, however, has identified parties. Those parties are purchased by Christ's blood for a particular purpose: kings and priests with him.

Therefore, benefiting from Christ's sacrifice does not automatically establish that someone is a participant in the new covenant

However, I think the discussion is still incomplete. Some of the strongest objections concern passages I have not yet examined in detail, particularly John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10–11.

I also think we need to distinguish between benefiting from Christ’s sacrifice and actually being a party to the covenant represented by his blood. Likewise, there may be an important distinction between the immortal life promised to those who rule with Christ and the eventual everlasting life that others may receive but after being brought to perfection and successfully passing the final test.

So I don't think we have reached the point where we can simply conclude that everyone who benefits from the ransom must therefore partake of the Memorial emblems. Your comments actually help identify the questions we need to investigate next.

That is what I like about this discussion: rather than starting with a conclusion and forcing every scripture into it, we can examine the relevant passages one by one and see where the evidence leads us.

 

[BibleLover]

7. Who are chosen today?

As we have seen, the great manifestation of holy spirit at Pentecost served an important purpose as a helper in spreading the good news. But the powerful works performed through the apostles also served another purpose: they publicly demonstrated God's support during the transition from the Jewish system to the newly established Christian congregation.

Even Jesus' miracles served as evidence that God had sent him. And before Pentecost, Jesus had already given his disciples power to perform powerful works.
Luke 9:1-2 says that he gave the Twelve

“power and authority over all the demons, and to cure diseases,” and sent them out to preach. Luke 9:1-2

The seventy disciples likewise returned saying:

“Lord, even the demons are subject to us by the use of your name.” Luke 10:17.

The miraculous gifts therefore had a particular purpose during the establishment and authentication of the Christian congregation. Nevertheless, as the apostolic period passed and the transition from Judaism to Christianity was completed, those extraordinary gifts were no longer a permanent feature of the Christian congregation.

Paul indicated that miraculous gifts such as tongues and prophecy would cease, while faith, hope, and love would remain. He concluded:

“But now there remain faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13:13.

This is important when we consider who might be chosen today. We are no longer living in the period when miraculous gifts provided an obvious public demonstration of God's backing. There is no visible supernatural sign that allows us to identify an anointed Christian simply by observing him.

Jesus' inspection of the seven congregations illustrates this very well. Consider Sardis. Jesus described the congregation as having:

“the name that you are alive, but you are dead.” Revelation 3:1.

Yet, despite the congregation's poor spiritual condition, Jesus identified a few individuals who had remained faithful:

“You do have a few names in Sardis who did not defile their garments, and they will walk with me in white, because they are worthy.” — Revelation 3:4.

What is striking is what Jesus does not say. He does not identify these individuals because they performed miracles, spoke foreign languages, prophesied, or possessed some prominent position in the congregation. They were simply faithful. They had not defiled their garments.They were worthy.

This suggests that, in the absence of miraculous gifts, what distinguishes those whom Jehovah approves must be found in their spiritual qualities and conduct. That makes the fruit of the spirit particularly important:

“The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.” — Galatians 5:22-23.

So the question of who is chosen today cannot be determined simply by knowledge, prominence, abilities, or religious position. In fact, the Bible warns us against relying on human expectations. Paul wrote:

“God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame, and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong men to shame.” — 1 Corinthians 1:27.

The person whom humans consider impressive may not be the person whom Jehovah chooses. Conversely, someone quiet, unnoticed, or apparently insignificant may possess qualities that Jehovah values greatly. Knowledge alone is not enough. Paul warned:

“If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him.” — 1 Corinthians 8:2-3.

That is a remarkable statement. Being known by God is connected with love, not merely with knowledge.

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 13 makes the point even more forcefully. A person might speak in tongues, prophesy, understand “all the sacred secrets” and possess extraordinary knowledge and faith:

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I am a sounding piece of brass or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” — 1 Corinthians 13:1-2.

Even extraordinary spiritual abilities would not prove God's approval if love were absent.

Paul goes even further:

“If I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all.” — 1 Corinthians 13:3.

So even great sacrifice by itself is not sufficient.

This brings together several points we have considered:

. Complete dedication is important.

. A willingness to follow Christ, suffer with him, and even surrender one's life is essential.

. But dedication cannot be reduced to outward sacrifice. The motivation behind the sacrifice matters.

A person may give away his possessions, endure hardship, acquire great Bible knowledge, speak different languages, or occupy a prominent position—and still fail to develop the love that God's spirit produces.

Therefore, if Jehovah is choosing individuals today for the heavenly calling, we should expect him to look beyond outward appearance.

Perhaps the most important evidence would be a life progressively shaped by the fruit of the spirit, with love as the leading motivation.

This also gives us a reason to be humble when discussing who is anointed. We cannot see the heart, and we cannot know whom Jehovah has chosen merely from outward appearances. The person who seems least important to others may be precisely the one whom Jehovah values.

So perhaps the question is not simply “Who claims to be anointed?” but rather:

“What qualities would we expect to see in someone who has truly received God's spirit and is being prepared to become a son, heir, and joint ruler with Christ?”

That brings us naturally to another question:

What might happen during Christ's future judgment, particularly during the great tribulation, when powerful testimony is again associated with the two witnesses and the 7,000?

That will be discussed in the following point.

 

[Watchman]

Here's a different approach to the question of who should partake. Flip it around and ask: Who will Christ partake with? The Evening Meal is, after all, a communion between God and those called into union with Christ. Now consider what Jesus said when he instituted the Evening Meal: So when the hour came, he reclined at the table along with the apostles. And he said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” And accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves, for I tell you, from now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.”

Until what is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God? The covenant. When will the Kingdom of God come? When Christ returns. That is why Paul explained,
"For whenever you eat this loaf and drink this cup, you keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes." - 1 Cor 10:26

In the 12th chapter of Luke, Jesus spoke of his coming and said: “Be dressed and ready and have your lamps burning, and you should be like men waiting for their master to return from the marriage, so when he comes and knocks, they may at once open to him. Happy are those slaves whom the master on coming finds watching! Truly I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them."

Oddly, the teachers of Jehovah's Witnesses do not make the connection between Jesus coming alongside his waiting disciples and the parousia, which, of course, literally means to come alongside. But the fact that Jesus' illustration evokes the occasion of the original Evening Meal, when Jesus wrapped a towel around his waist and washed the feet of the apostles, indicates that his coming, and parousia, will conclude the new covenant. That is when he will once again, figuratively, eat the Passover and drink the cup from the product of the vine. When Christ comes alongside the chosen ones and shares the Evening Meal with them, the Kingdom of God will have come.

 

[BibleLover]

Thanks, Robert. You nailed it.

I think your comment actually helped me see that I may have been asking the question in the wrong way. Instead of asking primarily, “Who should partake of the Memorial today?”, perhaps the more fundamental question is:

Who will Christ partake with when he returns and the Kingdom of God comes?

Luke 22 seems to point us in that direction. Jesus said that he would not eat the Passover or drink from the product of the vine again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. Then he immediately spoke of making a covenant with his disciples for a Kingdom.

That makes the Memorial seem less like the covenant itself and more like a present symbolic observance of a covenant whose full realization is future. It is not that the Memorial has no significance today. Jesus commanded his disciples to keep doing it “in remembrance” of him, and Paul says that by eating and drinking they “keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.” So the Memorial serves at least three purposes now: it commemorates Christ's sacrifice, publicly proclaims his death, and points forward to the fulfillment of the covenant when he comes.

The actual fulfillment of that covenant is still ahead. Those called into it must first remain faithful with Christ in his trials, even to death, and then be glorified with him. This fits remarkably well with Romans 8:17: “joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.”

Your connection with Luke 12:36-37 is therefore particularly interesting. The Master returns, finds his slaves watching, and then has them recline at the table and ministers to them. That seems to fit beautifully with the idea that the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant and the Kingdom occurs when Christ comes.

This also changes how I see Goldie's argument.

She raises the point that Christ's blood provides forgiveness and life, and therefore concludes that those who receive those benefits should participate in the Memorial. But perhaps two different things are being conflated:

Benefiting from Christ's sacrifice and being a party to the covenant represented by his blood.

The ransom is Christ's life poured out for others. The benefit comes from his sacrifice itself; drinking the wine does not add anything to the ransom. The question is therefore not whether someone must literally drink the Memorial cup in order to receive life. The more fundamental question is whether that person has been called into the covenant whose ultimate purpose is Kingdom rulership with Christ.

This may also help with John 6. If Jesus' flesh and blood provide the basis for receiving life, we still need to determine whether his words about eating and drinking are referring specifically to Memorial participation or to receiving life through faith in his sacrifice. We shouldn't simply assume those are identical.

And there is another important distinction: the everlasting-life benefit of Christ's sacrifice is not necessarily identical to the immortal life and heavenly glorification promised to those who rule with Christ. If the earthly class ultimately receives everlasting life only after being brought to perfection and successfully passing the final test, then Goldie's argument from “receiving life” does not by itself establish participation in the Kingdom covenant.

So I think your “Who will Christ partake with?” approach gives us a much better framework.

The Memorial asks us to look forward, not merely at who is receiving benefits from the ransom today. The really decisive question is:

Who will be united with Christ when he comes, and with whom will he share the fulfillment of the Kingdom covenant?

That seems to bring Luke 22, Luke 12, Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 11 together in a way I hadn't fully appreciated before.

 

[BibleLover]

I think there is one more point that actually makes Robert's question “Who will Christ partake with?” even more significant.

There is an interesting irony : the very name tells us what the observance is: a Memorial, a remembrance.

Jesus said, “Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)

And Paul says that whenever Christians eat the loaf and drink the cup, they

“keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26)

So, as Robert explained , Jesus is not present at the Memorial participating with those who eat and drink. The Memorial commemorates something he already did, his sacrificial death, and points forward to something that has not yet occurred: his coming and the fulfillment of the Kingdom covenant.

That makes it difficult to see how the physical act of eating the bread and drinking the wine could itself produce everlasting life. The life-giving power is in Christ’s actual sacrifice, not in the symbols commemorating it.

The Memorial points us toward that future reality rather than itself being the reality.

 

[BibleLover]

There is another thought that comes to mind here. The famous phrase from The Little Prince seems particularly appropriate: “What is essential is invisible to the eye"

At the Memorial, the bread and wine are the things we can see and physically consume. But they are only symbols.

The essential realities they point to cannot be seen: Christ’s sacrifice, the ransom, the covenant, the calling by holy spirit, and ultimately the future Kingdom relationship between Christ and those who will rule with him.

In that sense, it is almost ironic to make the physical act of eating and drinking the focus. Jesus called it a Memorial, a remembrance. The symbols direct our attention to something much greater than themselves.

And Jesus isn't present at the Memorial to partake with us. He said he would drink again only when the Kingdom comes. So the Memorial points backward to his sacrifice and forward to his coming.

Perhaps that is why your question, “Who will Christ partake with?”, gets closer to the essential reality than simply asking who should eat the symbols today.

 

[Goldie]

There is another thought that comes to mind here. The famous phrase from The Little Prince seems particularly appropriate: “What is essential is invisible to the eye"

At the Memorial, the bread and wine are the things we can see and physically consume. But they are only symbols.

The essential realities they point to cannot be seen: Christ’s sacrifice, the ransom, the covenant, the calling by holy spirit, and ultimately the future Kingdom relationship between Christ and those who will rule with him.

In that sense, it is almost ironic to make the physical act of eating and drinking the focus. Jesus called it a Memorial, a remembrance. The symbols direct our attention to something much greater than themselves.

And Jesus isn't present at the Memorial to partake with us. He said he would drink again only when the Kingdom comes. So the Memorial points backward to his sacrifice and forward to his coming.

Perhaps that is why your question, “Who will Christ partake with?”, gets closer to the essential reality than simply asking who should eat the symbols today.

Thank you BibleLover — I am really thinking about your point that what is essential is invisible to the eye.

I agree that the bread and wine are symbols and the essential realities — the ransom, the covenant, the Kingdom — are invisible. But I have 3 questions I am stuck on:

1. Jesus himself made the physical act the focus of the remembrance. He didn't say "think about me." He said "TAKE, EAT. DRINK." — Matt 26:26-27. He handed them something.

2. If the Memorial only points forward and Jesus isn't present now why did Paul say we are sharing in his body and blood when we partake now? — 1 Cor 10:16 The cup... is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf... is it not a sharing in the body?

3. And you said the essential question is who will Christ partake with in the future? But my question is, who did Jesus command to partake now in remembrance? He said "keep doing this in remembrance of me" — Luke 22:19 — and Paul said when we do it we are "proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes" — 1 Cor 11:26. That proclaiming is now, not just in the future Kingdom in Luke 12:37.

And that is why I am still stuck on John 6:53-54 — "unless you eat... you have no life" and "whoever feeds... has everlasting life" — present tense, now.

 

[Ana]

Gracias, amante de la Biblia. Estoy reflexionando mucho sobre tu punto de vista de que lo esencial es invisible a los ojos.

Estoy de acuerdo en que el pan y el vino son símbolos y que las realidades esenciales —el rescate, la alianza, el Reino— son invisibles. Pero tengo tres preguntas que me tienen atascado:

1. Jesús mismo hizo del acto físico el centro del recuerdo. No dijo «piensen en mí». Dijo «TOMEN, COMAN, BEBAN». — Mateo 26:26-27. Les dio algo.

2. Si el Memorial solo apunta hacia adelante y Jesús no está presente ahora, ¿por qué dijo Pablo que participamos de su cuerpo y sangre cuando participamos ahora? — 1 Corintios 10:16 La copa... ¿no es una participación en la sangre de Cristo? El pan... ¿no es una participación en el cuerpo?

3. Y usted dijo que la pregunta esencial es: ¿con quién participará Cristo en el futuro? Pero mi pregunta es: ¿a quién mandó Jesús participar ahora en memoria de Cristo? Él dijo: «Sigan haciendo esto en memoria mía» (Lucas 22:19), y Pablo dijo que al hacerlo estamos «proclamando la muerte del Señor hasta que él venga» (1 Corintios 11:26). Esa proclamación es ahora, no solo en el futuro Reino mencionado en Lucas 12:37.

Y por eso sigo pensando en Juan 6:53-54: "si no coméis... no tenéis vida" y "el que da de comer... tiene vida eterna" — en presente, ahora.

Leyendo Juan 6:53-54-. Solo los ungidos pueden encajar en este texto. Una vez cumplido el pacto ellos son los únicos que adquieren la vida eterna. A los demás les queda el milenio y por lo tanto la posibilidad de morir cuando Satanás sea soltado de vuelta. Por lo tanto no puede ser aplicable para los no ungidos.
Personalmente veo muy claro que los que participan también participan de las pruebas que Jesús vivió y por lo tanto de su muerte. Prueba a la que los demás no serán sometidos como requisito para ese pacto.
A la muchedumbre no se les exige morir para el cumplimiento del pacto y eso es una gran diferencia.

 

[Spoilmerotten]

Romans 8:17-19 “If, then, we are children, we are also heirs—heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ—provided we suffer together so that we may also be glorified together. For I consider the sufferings at the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us. For the creation is waiting in eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God. Revelation 7:2-4 And I saw another angel ascending from the sunrise, having a seal of the living God; and he called with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to hurt the earth and the sea, saying: “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until after we have sealed the slaves of our God in their foreheads.” The sealing that this angel does is the final sealing, “ the seal of the living God” so that “all of {spiritual} Israel” is saved, the complete number of the 144,000.

 

[Goldie]

Thanks everyone. Lots to consider here, lol.

 

[Spoilmerotten]

Thank you BibleLover — I am really thinking about your point that what is essential is invisible to the eye.

I agree that the bread and wine are symbols and the essential realities — the ransom, the covenant, the Kingdom — are invisible. But I have 3 questions I am stuck on:

1. Jesus himself made the physical act the focus of the remembrance. He didn't say "think about me." He said "TAKE, EAT. DRINK." — Matt 26:26-27. He handed them something.

2. If the Memorial only points forward and Jesus isn't present now why did Paul say we are sharing in his body and blood when we partake now? — 1 Cor 10:16 The cup... is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf... is it not a sharing in the body?

3. And you said the essential question is who will Christ partake with in the future? But my question is, who did Jesus command to partake now in remembrance? He said "keep doing this in remembrance of me" — Luke 22:19 — and Paul said when we do it we are "proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes" — 1 Cor 11:26. That proclaiming is now, not just in the future Kingdom in Luke 12:37.

And that is why I am still stuck on John 6:53-54 — "unless you eat... you have no life" and "whoever feeds... has everlasting life" — present tense, now.

Goldie John 6:63 Jesus cleared this up with his disciples saying: It is the spirit that is life giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. John 6:35 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.” So Jesus words are our bread. When we ask God to “give us this day our daily bread” it is through study of God’s word and faith in his son and Jehovah’s promise that we gain life. Not through drinking a sip of dry Chardonnay that we bought at the store that is Passover approved or making our bread with nothing but water and wheat flour in our ovens. They are just symbols that we use to honor the Covenant that was instituted on Passover night. As to who partook on the night Jesus instituted the Covenant with his disciples, only the 12 were invited into the upper room that night that Jesus made the Covenant with. Only them. No one else! And Judas Iscariot left before the ceremony began because Satan entered him to go betray Jesus. Only the 11 left with Jesus were part of the Covenant. No outsiders were part of it. Only until Pentecost, was the Holy Spirit poured out on others that received God’s anointing. Since Jesus did not allow anyone else to partake that night, that were not included in that Covenant arrangement, it’s stands to reason that the other sheep that were not of that fold, would only be observers and not partake of the emblems.

 

[Antoon]

From Ana
Read John 6:53-54. Only the anointed fits into this text. As soon as the covenant is fulfilled, they are the only ones who receive eternal life. The rest have the millennium and thus the possibility of dying when Satan is released. So it cannot apply to the unanointed.

Personally, I see very clearly that those who participate also participate in the trials that Jesus went through and thus in his death. A process to which the others will not be subjected as a requirement for that covenant.

The multitude does not have to die for the fulfillment of the covenant, and that is a major difference.

 

[BibleLover]

Thank you BibleLover — I am really thinking about your point that what is essential is invisible to the eye.

I agree that the bread and wine are symbols and the essential realities — the ransom, the covenant, the Kingdom — are invisible. But I have 3 questions I am stuck on:

1. Jesus himself made the physical act the focus of the remembrance. He didn't say "think about me." He said "TAKE, EAT. DRINK." — Matt 26:26-27. He handed them something.

2. If the Memorial only points forward and Jesus isn't present now why did Paul say we are sharing in his body and blood when we partake now? — 1 Cor 10:16 The cup... is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf... is it not a sharing in the body?

3. And you said the essential question is who will Christ partake with in the future? But my question is, who did Jesus command to partake now in remembrance? He said "keep doing this in remembrance of me" — Luke 22:19 — and Paul said when we do it we are "proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes" — 1 Cor 11:26. That proclaiming is now, not just in the future Kingdom in Luke 12:37.

And that is why I am still stuck on John 6:53-54 — "unless you eat... you have no life" and "whoever feeds... has everlasting life" — present tense, now.

Hi Goldie. I agree that we shouldn't minimize the physical act of eating and drinking. Jesus clearly commanded it. But I think we need to distinguish between the ransom, the covenant, and the Memorial that represents them.

First, the ransom is Christ's sacrificed perfect human life.

There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all—this is what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times." 1 Timothy 2:5, 6

Notice how the ramson benefits all. That is what provides the basis for forgiveness and the possibility of everlasting life. The bread and wine represent his body and blood, but the symbols themselves are not what constitute the ransom.

There is an interesting precedent in Hebrews 9. Under the Mosaic arrangement, the Israelites benefited from sacrifices involving blood, but they did not drink the blood. In fact, blood was not to be consumed. The priests had access to the Holy Place, while only the high priest entered the Most Holy, and even he did so only once a year with blood. (Heb. 9:1-7). Yet, the whole nation could benefit from the sacrificial arrangement without having the same access or priestly position.

Hebrews then says: Christ entered the greater reality once for all time with his own blood, becoming mediator of the new covenant. (Heb. 9:11-15).

That seems important because it shows that benefiting from a sacrifice does not necessarily mean being part of the special covenant arrangement associated with that sacrifice.

The ransom can benefit people who are not parties to the new covenant, whereas the new covenant is associated with those who are called to receive the Kingdom inheritance and serve as kings and priests with Christ.

Let's see John 6:53-54, which I agree is the most difficult passage:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life.”

Notice the expression “life in yourselves”. If we compare this with the rest of Scripture, there seems to be an important distinction between receiving the prospect of everlasting life and actually possessing life inherently. The anointed, at their resurrection, receive immortality, indestructible life. (1 Cor. 15:53, 54.) But those with the earthly hope, even after resurrection, still need the Lamb to guide them to “fountains of waters of life.” (Rev. 7:17.)

Could John 6:53 actually be describing the ultimate result of being united with Christ, the kind of life that the anointed receive at their resurrection rather than prescribing the physical consumption of Memorial emblems?

There is another very interesting connection. John 6:54 says:

“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”

So the sequence is:

eat/drink > everlasting life > resurrection on the last day.

John 6:53 doesn't sound like Jesus was simply explaining what people should physically do at the Memorial, because the Memorial itself had not yet been instituted.

And if we connect this with Hebrews 9, the distinction becomes even sharper:

Christ offers his actual life once for all > his blood provides the ransom > those benefiting from the ransom receive life through Christ > those called into the covenant ultimately share Christ's heavenly inheritance and receive immortality.

The earthly beneficiaries of the ransom, meanwhile, still need Christ to lead them to the waters of life and ultimately reach full human perfection.

That would also fit with what Paul says about the Memorial:

"Whenever Christians eat the loaf and drink the cup, they “keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26.)

So the Memorial is very much a present observance, but it concerns both a past reality and a future one:

Past: Christ's actual sacrifice, the ransom.

Present: we remember and proclaim that sacrifice and the anointed participate symbolically in the arrangement it established.

Future: Christ comes and the Kingdom/covenant reaches its fulfillment.

As Robert mentioned, Jesus himself said that he would not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes. (Luke 22:18.) That is why his question “Who will Christ partake with when he comes?” is so interesting.

 

[MickHewitt]

But I think we need to distinguish between the ransom, the covenant, and the Memorial that represents them.

Yes there is a distinction between those who have life in themselves and those as Isa65:20 states concerning ones resurrected to a *paradise earth "No more will there be an infant from that *place who lives but a few days......For anyone who dies at a hundred will be considered a mere boy......And the sinner will be cursed even though he is a hundred years of age." These are the ones who benefit from the ransom.

 

[BibleLover]

There is another question that may help us understand what Jesus meant when he spoke about receiving life through his flesh and blood: What is the difference between a resurrection of life and a resurrection of judgment?

Jesus said:

“Those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” — John 5:28, 29.

Acts 24:15 similarly speaks of “a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”

"Having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" — Acts 24:15

This raises an interesting possibility. Resurrection itself may not be identical with already possessing everlasting life. A person can be resurrected because of the ransom and still have a judgment or proving process ahead.

This seems particularly important when we consider the different resurrections described elsewhere. Paul says:

“Christ has been raised up from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.” — 1 Corinthians 15:20-23.

Paul then describes Christ's Kingdom rule and says:

“For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.” — 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26.

This is significant. Death is not eliminated at the beginning of Christ's Kingdom. Christ rules until the last enemy, death, is brought to nothing.

This appears to harmonize with Revelation 20. During the thousand years, Satan is abyssed and Christ rules. After the thousand years, however, Satan is released for a final test:

“He will go out to mislead the nations in the four corners of the earth... The number of these is as the sand of the sea.” — Revelation 20:7, 8.

Those who allow themselves to be deceived and rebel against Jehovah are then destroyed. Revelation does not describe this simply as ordinary Adamic death; they suffer the second death, represented by the lake of fire. — Revelation 20:9, 14.

This is an important distinction.

Sheol and Hades are associated with common human death, from which there can be a resurrection. Revelation 20:13 says that death and Hades give up the dead.

The lake of fire, however, represents the second death. There is no indication of a resurrection from it.

Thus, even after the thousand years, there is still a final possibility of losing life. Those who rebel after having been brought to human perfection demonstrate that perfection is not the same as permanent approval.

Only after this final test does Revelation describe the ultimate condition:

“And death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.” — Revelation 21:4.

The usual understanding is that Revelation 21:3, 4 describes the situation immediately following Armageddon. There is certainly a reasonable basis for that view. The Great Tribulation will bring enormous suffering, and the words that God will wipe away tears and remove pain would provide tremendous comfort to those who survive it. However, the text itself may allow another chronological possibility.

Revelation 20 has just described the thousand-year reign, Satan's release, the final rebellion, the destruction of the rebels, and finally the destruction of death and Hades. Immediately afterward, Revelation 21 introduces the new heaven and new earth and says:

“There will be no more death.”

That wording could therefore describe the condition after the thousand years and after the final test, when death has been completely abolished.

This would also fit Paul's statement that Christ must rule until death, the last enemy, is brought to nothing.

The logical sequence is striking:

Christ's return > resurrection of those belonging to Christ > Kingdom rule > resurrection and restoration > final test > destruction of Satan and the rebellious > “there will be no more death.”

This also helps us understand why resurrection, everlasting life, and immortality should not automatically be treated as identical things.

The anointed who are resurrected at Christ's coming receive immortality. They have life in themselves in the fullest sense.

Those resurrected to earthly life, however, are still dependent upon Christ's Kingdom administration. Revelation 7:17 says that the Lamb guides them to “fountains of waters of life.” Their eventual everlasting human life is therefore reached through the Kingdom's work and the final test.

Only after that test can Revelation finally say that death will be no more.

And this brings us back to John 6:53:

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.”

“Life in yourselves” therefore have a particularly deep connection with the immortal life received by the anointed at their resurrection, rather than simply meaning that everyone must physically consume the Memorial emblems in order to obtain everlasting life.

We should not claim that this interpretation is proven by these texts alone. But when John 6, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, Acts 24, Revelation 20 and Revelation 21 are considered together, they present a remarkably coherent picture in which the ransom makes resurrection possible, the Kingdom brings mankind toward perfection, the final test determines who remains faithful, and only then is death completely abolished.

That may also explain why the Memorial should not be confused with the thing it commemorates. The ransom is Christ's actual sacrificed life. The Memorial is the remembrance and proclamation of that sacrifice. The ultimate results of the ransom and covenant are realized in the future.