Lords evening meal

mee

Interfaith Forums
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Jesus concluded the first observance of the Lord’s Evening Meal with these words:

“Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” LUKE 22;19

The observance does indeed help us to remember Jesus and the wonderful things accomplished by his death.


It reminds us that Jesus upheld the sovereignty of his Father, Jehovah.


It also reminds us that by means of his death as a perfect, sinless human, Jesus gave his soul a RANSOM in exchange for many.

The ransom makes it possible for any who would exercise faith in his sacrifice to be freed from sin and to attain to everlasting life. MATTHEW 20;28


And this year it falls on 9th April after sundown.
And JEHOVAHS WITNESSES are not forgetting the words of Jesus .


They listen to Jesus luke 9;35
 
It is often overlooked that many aspects in the details of the Last Supper would indicate that the meal was not so much a supper of remembrance of the Passover, but a nuptial celebration, in which the Bridegroom and his (male) friends enjoy a meal together on the eve of the wedding ceremony.

The idea of the 'Nuptial Mystery' is in the Synoptics, the Discourse in John 17 clearly signifies it, Paul opens it up and Revelations addresses it directly.

Thomas
 
It is often overlooked that many aspects in the details of the Last Supper would indicate that the meal was not so much a supper of remembrance of the Passover, but a nuptial celebration, in which the Bridegroom and his (male) friends enjoy a meal together on the eve of the wedding ceremony.

The idea of the 'Nuptial Mystery' is in the Synoptics, the Discourse in John 17 clearly signifies it, Paul opens it up and Revelations addresses it directly.

Thomas
Namaste Thomas,

not so much a supper of remembrance of the Passover??

BibleGateway.com - KeywordSearch: passover

What I found interesting when I first started attending some services at a synagogue was the breaking of bread and wine and blessings were not only done at passover but at every service....
 
The new covenant in Christ transcends the covenants with Israel (although it does not invalidate them).

The coincide of the Passover and Jesus' crucifixion is, of course, no coincidence.

Thomas
 
It is often overlooked that many aspects in the details of the Last Supper would indicate that the meal was not so much a supper of remembrance of the Passover, but a nuptial celebration, in which the Bridegroom and his (male) friends enjoy a meal together on the eve of the wedding ceremony.
Namaste Thomas,

Then by all accounts would it not be Judas that was the best man?

Sent off by the bridegroom to make final arrangements?

Without him the ceremony you are describing would not have occurred.
 
No, Judas was the treasurer for the twelve, not the best man. That would be either Peter, James or John, and tradition reckons John.

According to custom as I understand it, the guests recline, lying on their sides, and so the place of honour, the seat of the 'best man' in this instance I believe, goes to he whom lies with his back to his Master, so that he could lean his head back on his master's chest.

John 13:21-25
"... Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me. The disciples therefore looked one upon another, doubting of whom he spoke. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh? He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it? Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him: Who is it of whom he speaketh? He therefore, leaning on the breast of Jesus, saith to him: Lord, who is it? ... "

The way I see it is this:
Jesus speaks to all, making one of those announcements which invariably cause a bit of a kerfuffle among the twelve (I'm sure He did this often ... ). According to this account, John lies with his back to Jesus (the place of the honoured guest), and Jesus lay with his back to Peter.

Peter discreetly tugs on John's clothing. John lifts his head and looks behind Jesus to speak to Peter (rude to talk across the Lord). 'Ask him who!' whispers Peter, agitatedly. So settling back, John does, but quietly, and Jesus replies:
"Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon..."
This could well have been a private exchange between the two.

"... And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor." 26-29
I've highlighted the text, none of the others knew, because they weren't party to the conversation between John and Jesus.

In this way, only John (and perhaps Peter) knew Judas will betray the Lord, as only they would have heard Jesus' comment. And both of them know better than to pre-empt Jesus in anything — Peter got his 'get thee behind me satan' rebuke for trying it before, and if Jesus wanted Judas stopped, all He had to do was say the word ... Peter, I'm sure, would have filleted him in an instant.

This is why I favour John as an eye-witness testimony, it contains loads of incidental detail, and it makes more sense than the Synoptics.

Thomas
 
No, Judas was the treasurer for the twelve, not the best man. That would be either Peter, James or John, and tradition reckons John.
I work a lot with big business....the CFO is the most trusted by the CEO...one doesn't take the assigning the job of handling funds lightly.
"Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon..."
This could well have been a private exchange between the two.

"... And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor." 26-29
Yes, Jesus gave him the bread...indicating it was him to do the deed, and then told him to go and do it quickly...yes no one knew what this was....except Jesus. Jesus knew the plan and sent his 'best man' to do it...who else would have, would John, Peter or James?? This was hours before he fought with second thoughts and take this cup from me yes? not my will but thy will?
 
I work a lot with big business....the CFO is the most trusted by the CEO...one doesn't take the assigning the job of handling funds lightly.
The point is Judas did what he did, not because it was God's will, nor was it Our Lord's, but because it's what man does he thinks he knows better than God ... Adam did it, Peter did it, Judas did it, we've always been doing it, it's what we do ... the only difference being that when Peter did it, Jesus had a choice, whereas when Judas did it, that option wasn't available to Him.

Thomas said, "let us go up to Jerusalem, so that we might die with him", they all knew the writing was on ther wall for Jesus.

Judas thought "I've got a better idea ... " — force Jesus' hand before the Sanhedrin moved against Him, by getting the Sanhedrin to move early. Recent displays showed Jesus had a lot of grass-roots support, but the longer Jesus delayed, the more the support would drift away from Him.

This is the essence of his betrayal, the essence of sin — it's a lack of faith.

I don't think Judas was an heroic figure, nor the best man for the job, unless by best man one means the most susceptible to a basic human failing. I bet Judas wasn't the Sanhedrin's first choice for mole in the Jesus Group. John, known to them, would have been the first and better bet

I think he was a tragic one. His own self-determined fate seems to indicate that.

Thomas
 
Back
Top