Use of emblems only for anointed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

The God Pill

Well-known member
What did the Passover lamb do? It's blood covered or hid the Israelite firstborn from the angel of death.
Jesus' blood cleanses us of our sins. Just seems to me that his death more closely resembles the yearly Day of Atonement then the Passover. I could be wrong but I think only the priests were allowed to eat of the sacrifice on that day.
More research needed. The whole lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world thing .....
Check out the book of Gad the Seer, a few verses in one of king David's speeches are intentionally poorly translated by this moron Ken Johnson to sound more trinitariany but the books a good read there is a vision in the first two chapters that explains where the lamb of God concept came from what would be in the mind of the Baptist audience when he called Jesus that.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
What did the Passover lamb do? It's blood covered or hid the Israelite firstborn from the angel of death.
Jesus' blood cleanses us of our sins. Just seems to me that his death more closely resembles the yearly Day of Atonement then the Passover. I could be wrong but I think only the priests were allowed to eat of the sacrifice on that day.
More research needed. The whole lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world thing .....
The sacrifice of lamb signified Jesus' sacrifice. Some details about the lamb were descriptive of Jesus (had to be without blemish) and how it was prepared (no broken bones) was to illustrate how Jesus would die.

edit: Found some of these details:

  1. The Passover lamb was to be chosen and set apart on the 10th day of the first month of Nissan.
    Fulfillment: On the 10th day of Nissan, Yeshua rode into Jerusalem on the foal of a donkey and was hailed as the King of the Jews.​
  2. The lamb was to be inspected for four days until the 14th day of the month for any spot or blemish that might disqualify it as the sacrificial lamb.
    Fulfillment: Yeshua openly taught in the Holy Temple and synagogues until the 14th day of the month and no fault could be found in Him.​
  3. At the appointed time, the Passover lambs were slain by the whole congregation of Israel.
    Fulfillment: Yeshua, Lamb of God, was delivered and publicly killed on a Roman execution stake as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered.​
 

The God Pill

Well-known member
To be clear I wasn't presenting any kind of either/or on day of atonement and passover but rather indicating several of the other Jewish holidays and there fulfillments in christ last week are comparatively underemphasized relative to passover.
 

Medi-tator

Well-known member
It's like saying only Levites were allowed to eat passover.
Mediator, ransomer. Is there a difference?
If today it's the spiritual Israel that are meant to eat, then it would mean that Jesus' sacrifice was only for them, and that doesn't make sense since Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind. But that brings the point from one of the previous posts that other sheep are part of spiritual Israel too. I'll stop here before it gets out of hand :D It's a big topic and I'm excited to look more into it.
In my limited opinion, I benefit from Jesus' sacrifice because he paid the ransom with his blood. I am however not a part of the Israel of God and therefore do not fall under the auspices of Christ's mediation between God and man. If there is a difference between Ransom and Mediation, that should settle the question. At least in my feeble brain.
 

Nomex

Well-known member
26 And when your sons ask you, ‘What does this observance mean to you?’ 27 you must say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the Passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when he plagued the Egyptians, but he spared our houses.’” Then the people bowed low and prostrated themselves. 28 So the Israelites went and did just as Jehovah had commanded Moses and Aaron. They did just so.
If today it's the spiritual Israel that are meant to eat, then it would mean that Jesus' sacrifice was only for them, and that doesn't make sense since Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind.
Completely agree with this....
 

evw

Well-known member
I found that, according to Justin Martyr, the practice was a weekly event, on the first day. Acts 20:7 seems to support it:
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal,
Could this note from the Study Bible help:

"Some claim that when this expression occurs in certain places in the book of Acts, it refers to the observance of the Lord’s Evening Meal. (Ac 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11)
Every time the Lord’s Evening Meal is mentioned, though, breaking bread is associated with drinking wine from a cup. (Mt 26:26-28; Mr 14:22-25; Lu 22:19, 20; 1Co 10:16-21; 11:23-26) The two actions are equally significant. So when breaking bread is mentioned without any reference to drinking from a cup, this is a reference, not to the Lord’s Evening Meal, but to an ordinary meal. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that Jesus intended the Memorial of his death to be observed more often than the festival it replaced, the Passover, which was observed just once a year."

It seems to me that the meal they were having was more like a 'saying goodby meal' to Paul who was leaving them the following day?
 

Nomex

Well-known member
Could this note from the Study Bible help:

"Some claim that when this expression occurs in certain places in the book of Acts, it refers to the observance of the Lord’s Evening Meal. (Ac 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11)
Every time the Lord’s Evening Meal is mentioned, though, breaking bread is associated with drinking wine from a cup. (Mt 26:26-28; Mr 14:22-25; Lu 22:19, 20; 1Co 10:16-21; 11:23-26) The two actions are equally significant. So when breaking bread is mentioned without any reference to drinking from a cup, this is a reference, not to the Lord’s Evening Meal, but to an ordinary meal. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that Jesus intended the Memorial of his death to be observed more often than the festival it replaced, the Passover, which was observed just once a year."

It seems that the meal they were having was more like a 'saying goodby meal' to Paul who was leaving them the following day?
I think there is real no debate that Passover was observed annually, and the "Lord's Evening meal" replaced it, clearly, it's to be done annually!
@alan ford The one thing we should do, when it comes to things we are not sure about is indeed let the Bible interpret the Bible. I do not think there is any question, the "Lord's Evening Meal" should be observed annually.
 

DR74minus

Well-known member
Mediator, ransomer. Is there a difference?

In my limited opinion, I benefit from Jesus' sacrifice because he paid the ransom with his blood. I am however not a part of the Israel of God and therefore do not fall under the auspices of Christ's mediation between God and man. If there is a difference between Ransom and Mediation, that should settle the question. At least in my feeble brain.

You answered your own question prehaps. Christ was the mediator ( or go between; between ) Jehovah and the anointed. The ransom was the price paid to redeem all of mankind ( including the anointed ), who were alienated from Jehovah, by the rebellion. ie; Jesus was the ransomer of man alienated from God. Sadly not all of mankind will benefit from Jesus sacrifice.

However that does not settle the issue of who is eligible to partake. Keep in mind that the Passover was a command given to the Jews. It was not a command placed on Christians. Or was it? I missed something prehaps. There is strong caution for the anointed at, 1 Cor 11:27-34.
 
Last edited:

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
You answered your own question prehaps. Christ was the mediator ( or go between; between ) Jehovah and the anointed. The ransom was the price paid to redeem all of mankind ( including the anointed ), who were alienated from Jehovah, by the rebellion. ie; Jesus was the ransomer of man alienated from God. Sadly not all of mankind will benefit from Jesus sacrifice.

However that does not settle the issue of who is eligible to partake. Keep in mind that the Passover was a command given to the Jews. It was not a command placed on Christians. Or was it? I missed something prehaps. There is strong caution for the anointed at, 1 Cor 11:27-34.
”Commands placed upon the Jews in regard to Passover”. When I read ‘commands’ I also look to the principle. That often adds a great deal more depth as to what is required as a command. After all a command is demand, so it is advisable to understand what is being demanded and why. There are considerable numbers of principles in the mosaic laws that have been fulfilled but their values are still sound.
 

SusanB

Well-known member
…you give the example of worldly events or traditions and apply the same logic to the the remembrance of Jesus' death. I understand and it makes sense logically. But I'm trying not to follow that logic and go by what the scriptures say, without reading into the text, but connecting the dots and trying to find evidence of how it was observed in early congregations. Using scripture to examine scripture. So what I think doesn't matter, because my thinking will change according to where that evidence points me to.

regarding your statement

I'll say that if the breaking of bread is done at every meeting, it significally increases the importance of every meeting. But I digress.

I found that, according to Justin Martyr, the practice was a weekly event, on the first day. Acts 20:7 seems to support it:
"On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to have a meal, Paul began addressing them, as he was going to depart the next day; and he prolonged his speech until midnight."
I listed more verses in previous posts, which also seem to confirm this.
Didache also states that eucharist (also known as Holy Communion and the Lord's Supper) was the essential part of Christian worship gatherings. Didache was recognized as one of the most important manuscripts of the early Christianity because it was written before church hierarchy was firmly in place and was very close to the Jewish Apostolic Age.

Now for the JW practice. Please note that this adresses the "annointed only partake" part since I am still looking for the "when the annual observance started" part.
I found that how the Memorial is practiced today most likely originates with Rutherford (I'm still researching this). It looks like it's closely connected to the changes in teaching who Other Sheep, Great Multitude and Jonadabs are. In March 1, 1938 Watchtower, p.75 it's stated:
"Am I of the anointed who are privileged and duty-bound to partake of the Memorial, or am I a Jonadab, who cannot partake of it?"

Now, as I am reading this WT and seeing that it's drawing the parallels to passover a thought occured to me: If the passover was a feast that was to be eaten by all Jews how is it then that only annointed eat the emblems? It seems to put an emphasis on who eats it instead of why it's eaten.
In Exodus 12 the reason why is stated: 26 And when your sons ask you, ‘What does this observance mean to you?’ 27 you must say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the Passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when he plagued the Egyptians, but he spared our houses.’” Then the people bowed low and prostrated themselves. 28 So the Israelites went and did just as Jehovah had commanded Moses and Aaron. They did just so.
If today it's the spiritual Israel that are meant to eat, then it would mean that Jesus' sacrifice was only for them, and that doesn't make sense since Jesus' sacrifice was for all mankind. But that brings the point from one of the previous posts that other sheep are part of spiritual Israel too. I'll stop here before it gets out of hand :D It's a big topic and I'm excited to look more into it.
Sorry this is where I lose interest because I don’t see this is a consistent way to examine the ideas conveyed in the scriptures. The context or frame of reference of how memorials in general are viewed is important but you want to throw that context out. In my opinion that cannot be discarded. So, there is no common ground here. Next you say that you want scripture to examine scripture and then you refer to unscriptural manuscripts that I am not interested in because they likely were tainted by the apostasy that took root after the death of John. So, again, no common ground. In other words, if you setup a standard with which to understand scripture and you want others to comply with your standard, you should also follow the same standard and I think you are not doing that. You are discarding my question and then presenting your own argument while violating your own rule which you used to discard my question. So, I‘m really not interested in spending any more time on this subject since we will never have a meeting of the minds on this topic.
 
Last edited:

alan ford

Well-known member
Sorry this is where I lose interest because I don’t see this is a consistent way to examine the ideas conveyed in the scriptures. The context or frame of reference of how memorials in general are viewed is important but you want to throw that context out. In my opinion that cannot be discarded. So, there is no common ground here. Next you say that you want scripture to examine scripture and then you refer to unscriptural manuscripts that I am not interested in because they likely were tainted by the apostasy that took root after the death of John. So, again, no common ground. In other words, if you setup a standard with which to understand scripture and you want others to comply with your standard, you should also follow the same standard and I think you are not doing that. You are discarding my question and then presenting your own argument while violating your own rule which you used to discard my question. So, I‘m really not interested in spending any more time on this subject since we will never have a meeting of the minds on this topic.
I am not throwing that context out, but I'm not using it as a foundation either. I refer to the manuscript as evidence of what was recorded of practices of early Christians that seem to support scriptures. You'd think that there should also be same evidence for annual observance which I haven't been able to find. I'm not sure how much apostasy could taint it in mere 50 years after the apostles. WT literature which is also tainted with apostasy is fine to use, right? They got it right immediately, after almost 2 millenia of corruption. I'm having hard time accepting that. Especially when they say they are not inspired. And even more so because it was Rutherford. I'm not sure what the issue is with trying to understand it.
 

alan ford

Well-known member
I think there is real no debate that Passover was observed annually, and the "Lord's Evening meal" replaced it, clearly, it's to be done annually!
@alan ford The one thing we should do, when it comes to things we are not sure about is indeed let the Bible interpret the Bible. I do not think there is any question, the "Lord's Evening Meal" should be observed annually.
Look, I'm fine with the annual observance. I never said I have a problem with it. What I'm trying to do is find specific references of the annual observation in early congregations (along with the "only annointed partake"). Why I'm doing that is because the passages from the Bible seem to indicate that it was observed more regularly. But I probably should keep it to myself as to not create more issues...
 

White Stone

Well-known member
Look, I'm fine with the annual observance. I never said I have a problem with it. What I'm trying to do is find specific references of the annual observation in early congregations (along with the "only annointed partake"). Why I'm doing that is because the passages from the Bible seem to indicate that it was observed more regularly. But I probably should keep it to myself as to not create more issues...
Hi @alan ford . Thank you for bringing this up. I have researched the tradition of the Eucharist being of weekly observance in the time of Justin, and how WT translates the “breaking of bread”(Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:19; Compare Acts 2:42,46 Greek Interlinear) to “taking of meals”—removing its significance.

After the time I received the invitation to “eat the Eucharist”, I wish also all others would become “born-again” to eat it as I am. As from what I understand in the Lord’s word that “unless anyone is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”(John 3:5 NWT)

The Lord knows when will I celebrate the Memorial with the JWs in that time—which is not Sunday— and yet, he said to me plainly “eat the Eucharist” two months before that significant event.

When Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist or Memorial or the Lord’s Evening Meal, he did it not on Sunday or first day of the week. He rather said: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” Jesus did not specifically mentioned how many times should we remember him during a year but he did said to “keep doing” it in remembrance of him. We can do it everyday as the apostles did(compare Acts 2:46), weekly(according to Justin Martyr), monthly or annually, on Sunday, or Monday or any day of the week. What’s important is we did it to remember him.

Regarding the question to partake even if not anointed or invited, I would say, each to his own as Paul said: “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. First let a man approve himself after scrutiny, and only then let him eat of the loaf and drink of the cup.”(1 Corinthians 11:27,28) After all, it is Christ who will judge us all, the one who knows the inclinations of our heart, the one who can judge us rightly.
 

Medi-tator

Well-known member
You answered your own question prehaps. Christ was the mediator ( or go between; between ) Jehovah and the anointed. The ransom was the price paid to redeem all of mankind ( including the anointed ), who were alienated from Jehovah, by the rebellion. ie; Jesus was the ransomer of man alienated from God. Sadly not all of mankind will benefit from Jesus sacrifice.

However that does not settle the issue of who is eligible to partake. Keep in mind that the Passover was a command given to the Jews. It was not a command placed on Christians. Or was it? I missed something prehaps. There is strong caution for the anointed at, 1 Cor 11:27-34.
My question was a leading question but it did not come across as such so how would you have known that unless you are a mind reader? You don't need to answer that one either. Thank you for your thoughts and answers Kiwi!
 

SusanB

Well-known member
… WT literature which is also tainted with apostasy is fine to use, right? They got it right immediately, after almost 2 millenia of corruption. I'm having hard time accepting that. Especially when they say they are not inspired. And even more so because it was Rutherford. I'm not sure what the issue is with trying to understand it.
You’ve just exposed yourself with this little gem. Sayonara Alan Ford. I see what you are trying to do.
 

Cristo

Well-known member
Thanks Cristo, it's very helpful! That's a very good point about looking both ways. I've mentioned earlier in one of the comments that Jews observed the passover as a reminder of what happened in Egypt. The reference I used after that was just to expand on the subject. The way you put it gives me some more material to think on, thanks for that!
Having said that, to me it doesn't make sense that Lord's evening meal is a replacement for passover because the promised messiah signified by the lamb had arrived and was sacrificed, thus fulfilling it. What is it replacing then? So any further comparison to passover is not clear to me...
I think I will have to take issue with this. The 144,000 would actually be part of the bride class, therefore the bride, but what about the guests who are invited? Do they not partake of the wedding reception "feast"? Who witnesses the "Wedding" if they are all part of the wedding class? Are the Great Crowd not invited to the to the "wedding"?
Now I understand this is a heavenly wedding, so we could not literally be present, But are we not beneficiaries of Christ sacrifice, in fact the main beneficiaries? There would be NO Bride Class if Adam and Eve had not sinned, and God's primary purpose is to restore his Kingdom arrangement to the earth as it was prior to their sin! I think there is a good argument to make that the Great Crowd should partake of the emblems! I also understand that Jesus was instituting a "New Covenant" but no Jew under the Mosaic Law Covenant was going to heaven either. I think there is some discrepancy as to what the New Covenant means to the Great Crowd....
I'm ok with that. I would never be dogmatic on somebody else's beliefs. It is interesting that the word covenant wasn't actually used when Jesus made this promise to the apostles, however the WT decided it fit the context. I don't really think it changes anything when looked at from the bigger picture.
And just as my Father has granted me a Kingdom, I now grant you the right​
and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,​
And I bestow on you a kingdom, just as My Father has bestowed one on Me,​
And I appoint to you a kingdom, as My Father appointed to Me,​
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;​
And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,​
and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you​

I don't have time right now to talk specifics with you, later today I will have more. However, only Jehovah can judge a true heart. If you decided to take a bite of bread on the memorial of Jesus death, and have faith in Jesus Christ, I doubt Jehovah would strike you down if you are not an invited person. Considering that in this thread alone it shows so much confusion, as to how the emblems should be perceived, I'm sure Jehovah realizes this, do you not? In fact if he wanted it to be more clear, I suppose he would have made it so? So you do you Nomex, who am I to say anything else?
 

alan ford

Well-known member
You’ve just exposed yourself with this little gem. Sayonara Alan Ford. I see what you are trying to do.
You take this way too personally imo. And what's with the personal attacks?... But I'll ask, exposed what exactly? What am I trying to do? Did I not repeatedly say what I am trying to do? You see what you want to see. And besides, is the WT apostasy not the main theme of this forum and Robert's commentaries? You do you I guess...
 

SusanB

Well-known member
I'm ok with that. I would never be dogmatic on somebody else's beliefs. It is interesting that the word covenant wasn't actually used when Jesus made this promise to the apostles, however the WT decided it fit the context. I don't really think it changes anything when looked at from the bigger picture.
And just as my Father has granted me a Kingdom, I now grant you the right​
and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,​
And I bestow on you a kingdom, just as My Father has bestowed one on Me,​
And I appoint to you a kingdom, as My Father appointed to Me,​
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;​
And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,​
and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you​

I don't have time right now to talk specifics with you, later today I will have more. However, only Jehovah can judge a true heart. If you decided to take a bite of bread on the memorial of Jesus death, and have faith in Jesus Christ, I doubt Jehovah would strike you down if you are not an invited person. Considering that in this thread alone it shows so much confusion, as to how the emblems should be perceived, I'm sure Jehovah realizes this, do you not? In fact if he wanted it to be more clear, I suppose he would have made it so? So you do you Nomex, who am I to say anything else?
I love your comment Cristo. I will just add that we should want to seek Jehovah’s righteousness and stay humble. If we are truly confused, let Jehovah reveal the understanding to us at the appropriate time. Pray about it in full faith that he will guide you. If any uncertainty exists be patient and wait for the answer. I think humble people can agree to disagree but the arrogant ones seem to want to attack personalities and start the insults. That is always quite revealing.
 

DR74minus

Well-known member
”Commands placed upon the Jews in regard to Passover”. When I read ‘commands’ I also look to the principle. That often adds a great deal more depth as to what is required as a command. After all a command is demand, so it is advisable to understand what is being demanded and why. There are considerable numbers of principles in the mosaic laws that have been fulfilled but their values are still sound.

Put another way not all of the mosaic law is binding on Christians. Jehovah did say he will make a new covenant with the house of Judah and Israel. The old way of worship was done away with including the Sabbath and Passover prehaps. However the principles of the law remained tied up in the law of the Christ.
 

DR74minus

Well-known member
My question was a leading question but it did not come across as such so how would you have known that unless you are a mind reader? You don't need to answer that one either. Thank you for your thoughts and answers Kiwi!

I saw it as rhetorical. but when you answered it yourself, I added 1 cent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top