Passover and the Lord's supper communion

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just FYI- I have no problem disagreeing with people who claim expertise. Sometimes I prove my point and they accept it, and sometimes they further explain their reasoning, which I deem as valid, and sometimes we simply disagree, which good scholars are used to.

 

There are certain accepted forms of puns in Hebrew, but generally the puns have to have a sufficiently similar sound, or a play on words.  

 

A simply pun in Hebrew can be found in Isaiah 5:7

 

'God looked for justice (mishpat) but only saw oppresion (mispach).'

 

For pure poetic verse, look no further the Genesis 1 where scripture says the earthd was without form and void which is a famously poetic expression of Tohu v'Bohu

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew.

 

Jerry

 

 

Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there.  

 

Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from?

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him.

 

 

 

Ok, so you chose to use the Howard Mercer translation of atonement. In light of other translations, Mercer to my knowledge stands alone. It brings up one issue. The word as written is plural. I do not know if the text calls for singular as the other translations or if the Greek word allows for atonement or forgiveness. I do not know Greek so I am at a definite disadvantage when dealing with a Greek to Hebrew translation. I am far more comfortable with English to Hebrew or Hebrew to English.  But the differences between this and other reliable translations does raise a question.

 

Another issue is the words chosen. Pri hagafen is a standard phrase translated as fruit of the vine/wine. Fruit of the vine is a phrase used repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. To break apart this phrase to use fruit and vine as a word play does not seem warranted. I do not believe this was intended as a word play. Rather it is a standard phrase and any perceived word play is simply coincidental.  

 

 

Unless the word play goes back to the Hebrew scriptures.

 

That's the point, I am not breaking them apart. "Fruit of the Vine" is the target of the wordplay and poetically morphs into "atonement of the body." Isn't that what the last supper symbolized and the offering of Jesus on the cross was about? The key to the poem is Fruit of the vine - Jesus used this precise term for a reason. When a poet uses a precise term it is often to create a wordplay. Jesus was a poet and I believe that the phrase Fruit of the vine was chosen by him to create a poem.

 

By the way, I looked for obvious poetics by going through the gospels in English so that I would not create wordplays in Hebrew. They are typically easy to spot in English. Normally a very specific descriptive and unique word or phrase placed in a passage - even though it is translated it is still very specific and descriptive. Then you have to go back into the native speaker's language and try to find what rhymes with what appears to be a poetic device. I chose this text because it had the poetic device that I had already spotted. It can take a long time until you finally understand the poetic device and the meaning that it is trying to amplify. You have to try to look at the passage as a poet would.  

 

Jerry

 

Since fruit of the vine is standard terminology, it was not specifically chosen to create a poem. It is standard terminology used multiple times in the OT in reference to wine.  Now, if you want to argue that it is used multiple times in the OT, anticipating the poetic use in the NT.  

 

The last supper did point to Jesus and what He would do, but the symbolism is specific in the Passover seder. The fruit of the vine is consumed 4 times. The actual cup is the cup of redemption. This would be a back reference into Exodus starting with Exodus 6:6.

 

Cup 1: Exodus 6:6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,

 

Cup 2: I will rescue you from their bondage,

 

Cup 3: and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.

 

Cup 4: ⁷ I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

 

Cup 5 - Elijahs cup: ⁸ And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’”

 

Today, only 4 cups a consumed.

 

But all of that is a different topic. Again, you are assuming that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Although that is not a standard belief, it is a possibility. Then, we must accept that not all words which match the rules, are necessarily poetic devices. In this case, I see the format as a stretch.

[clontzjm]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just FYI- I have no problem disagreeing with people who claim expertise. Sometimes I prove my point and they accept it, and sometimes they further explain their reasoning, which I deem as valid, and sometimes we simply disagree, which good scholars are used to.

 

There are certain accepted forms of puns in Hebrew, but generally the puns have to have a sufficiently similar sound, or a play on words.  

 

A simply pun in Hebrew can be found in Isaiah 5:7

 

'God looked for justice (mishpat) but only saw oppresion (mispach).'

 

For pure poetic verse, look no further the Genesis 1 where scripture says the earthd was without form and void which is a famously poetic expression of Tohu v'Bohu

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew.

 

Jerry

 

 

Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there.  

 

Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from?

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him.

 

 

 

Ok, so you chose to use the Howard Mercer translation of atonement. In light of other translations, Mercer to my knowledge stands alone. It brings up one issue. The word as written is plural. I do not know if the text calls for singular as the other translations or if the Greek word allows for atonement or forgiveness. I do not know Greek so I am at a definite disadvantage when dealing with a Greek to Hebrew translation. I am far more comfortable with English to Hebrew or Hebrew to English.  But the differences between this and other reliable translations does raise a question.

 

Another issue is the words chosen. Pri hagafen is a standard phrase translated as fruit of the vine/wine. Fruit of the vine is a phrase used repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. To break apart this phrase to use fruit and vine as a word play does not seem warranted. I do not believe this was intended as a word play. Rather it is a standard phrase and any perceived word play is simply coincidental.  

 

 

Unless the word play goes back to the Hebrew scriptures.

 

That's the point, I am not breaking them apart. "Fruit of the Vine" is the target of the wordplay and poetically morphs into "atonement of the body." Isn't that what the last supper symbolized and the offering of Jesus on the cross was about? The key to the poem is Fruit of the vine - Jesus used this precise term for a reason. When a poet uses a precise term it is often to create a wordplay. Jesus was a poet and I believe that the phrase Fruit of the vine was chosen by him to create a poem.

 

By the way, I looked for obvious poetics by going through the gospels in English so that I would not create wordplays in Hebrew. They are typically easy to spot in English. Normally a very specific descriptive and unique word or phrase placed in a passage - even though it is translated it is still very specific and descriptive. Then you have to go back into the native speaker's language and try to find what rhymes with what appears to be a poetic device. I chose this text because it had the poetic device that I had already spotted. It can take a long time until you finally understand the poetic device and the meaning that it is trying to amplify. You have to try to look at the passage as a poet would.  

 

Jerry

 

Since fruit of the vine is standard terminology, it was not specifically chosen to create a poem. It is standard terminology used multiple times in the OT in reference to wine.  Now, if you want to argue that it is used multiple times in the OT, anticipating the poetic use in the NT.  

 

The last supper did point to Jesus and what He would do, but the symbolism is specific in the Passover seder. The fruit of the vine is consumed 4 times. The actual cup is the cup of redemption. This would be a back reference into Exodus starting with Exodus 6:6.

 

Cup 1: Exodus 6:6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,

 

Cup 2: I will rescue you from their bondage,

 

Cup 3: and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.

 

Cup 4: ⁷ I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

 

Cup 5 - Elijahs cup: ⁸ And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’”

 

Today, only 4 cups a consumed.

 

But all of that is a different topic. Again, you are assuming that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Although that is not a standard belief, it is a possibility. Then, we must accept that not all words which match the rules, are necessarily poetic devices. In this case, I see the format as a stretch.

 

Hello Qnts,

 

Why don't look at an example that is less of a stretch? Jesus makes a pretense to find “grounds for quarrelling” with the fig tree in Matthew 21:19. According to Mark 11:13, it wasn’t the season for figs so the pretense os obvious. The Hebrew word for fig tree is spelled the same as the Hebrew word used in Judges 14:4 for “occasion [ground of quarrel].” Jesus uses the double entendre for “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” as the theme of a poem that includes pun for “found” and “come forth” and also “leaves” and “forever.” There is a difference between Matthew and Mark wording that points to a Hebrew structure for Matthew.

 

Mark 11:14 “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”

Matthew 21:19 ““May no fruit ever come from you again!”

 

Matthew uses “come from you” while Mark has “eat fruit from you.” Matthew’s wording produces a Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth.” Jesus obviously intended the double entendre on “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” however the author of Matthew takes it further by recording an additional Hebrew pun that is not present in Mark's version. The author of Matthew in my opinion was aware of the Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth” and preserved it in his account.

 

“Fig Tree” תאנה

“Occasion [Ground of Quarrel]” תאנה

 

“Found” מצא

“Come Forth” יצא

 

“Leaves” העלים

“Forever” לעולם

 

“18 In the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road he went to it, and found {“Found” (מצא)} nothing on it but leaves {“Leaves” (העלים)} only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come {“Come Forth” (יצא)} from you again {“Forever” (לעולם)}!” And immediately the fig tree withered.” [Matthew 21:18-19 The Passion: The Poetry of God]

 

I would be interested in your views on this passage and its implications concerning the original text of Matthew.

 

Jerry

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just FYI- I have no problem disagreeing with people who claim expertise. Sometimes I prove my point and they accept it, and sometimes they further explain their reasoning, which I deem as valid, and sometimes we simply disagree, which good scholars are used to.

 

There are certain accepted forms of puns in Hebrew, but generally the puns have to have a sufficiently similar sound, or a play on words.  

 

A simply pun in Hebrew can be found in Isaiah 5:7

 

'God looked for justice (mishpat) but only saw oppresion (mispach).'

 

For pure poetic verse, look no further the Genesis 1 where scripture says the earthd was without form and void which is a famously poetic expression of Tohu v'Bohu

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew.

 

Jerry

 

 

Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there.  

 

Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from?

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him.

 

 

 

Ok, so you chose to use the Howard Mercer translation of atonement. In light of other translations, Mercer to my knowledge stands alone. It brings up one issue. The word as written is plural. I do not know if the text calls for singular as the other translations or if the Greek word allows for atonement or forgiveness. I do not know Greek so I am at a definite disadvantage when dealing with a Greek to Hebrew translation. I am far more comfortable with English to Hebrew or Hebrew to English.  But the differences between this and other reliable translations does raise a question.

 

Another issue is the words chosen. Pri hagafen is a standard phrase translated as fruit of the vine/wine. Fruit of the vine is a phrase used repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. To break apart this phrase to use fruit and vine as a word play does not seem warranted. I do not believe this was intended as a word play. Rather it is a standard phrase and any perceived word play is simply coincidental.  

 

 

Unless the word play goes back to the Hebrew scriptures.

 

That's the point, I am not breaking them apart. "Fruit of the Vine" is the target of the wordplay and poetically morphs into "atonement of the body." Isn't that what the last supper symbolized and the offering of Jesus on the cross was about? The key to the poem is Fruit of the vine - Jesus used this precise term for a reason. When a poet uses a precise term it is often to create a wordplay. Jesus was a poet and I believe that the phrase Fruit of the vine was chosen by him to create a poem.

 

By the way, I looked for obvious poetics by going through the gospels in English so that I would not create wordplays in Hebrew. They are typically easy to spot in English. Normally a very specific descriptive and unique word or phrase placed in a passage - even though it is translated it is still very specific and descriptive. Then you have to go back into the native speaker's language and try to find what rhymes with what appears to be a poetic device. I chose this text because it had the poetic device that I had already spotted. It can take a long time until you finally understand the poetic device and the meaning that it is trying to amplify. You have to try to look at the passage as a poet would.  

 

Jerry

 

Since fruit of the vine is standard terminology, it was not specifically chosen to create a poem. It is standard terminology used multiple times in the OT in reference to wine.  Now, if you want to argue that it is used multiple times in the OT, anticipating the poetic use in the NT.  

 

The last supper did point to Jesus and what He would do, but the symbolism is specific in the Passover seder. The fruit of the vine is consumed 4 times. The actual cup is the cup of redemption. This would be a back reference into Exodus starting with Exodus 6:6.

 

Cup 1: Exodus 6:6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,

 

Cup 2: I will rescue you from their bondage,

 

Cup 3: and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.

 

Cup 4: ⁷ I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

 

Cup 5 - Elijahs cup: ⁸ And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’”

 

Today, only 4 cups a consumed.

 

But all of that is a different topic. Again, you are assuming that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Although that is not a standard belief, it is a possibility. Then, we must accept that not all words which match the rules, are necessarily poetic devices. In this case, I see the format as a stretch.

 

Hello Qnts,

 

Why don't look at an example that is less of a stretch? Jesus makes a pretense to find “grounds for quarrelling” with the fig tree in Matthew 21:19. According to Mark 11:13, it wasn’t the season for figs so the pretense os obvious. The Hebrew word for fig tree is spelled the same as the Hebrew word used in Judges 14:4 for “occasion [ground of quarrel].” Jesus uses the double entendre for “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” as the theme of a poem that includes pun for “found” and “come forth” and also “leaves” and “forever.” There is a difference between Matthew and Mark wording that points to a Hebrew structure for Matthew.

 

Mark 11:14 “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”

Matthew 21:19 ““May no fruit ever come from you again!”

 

Matthew uses “come from you” while Mark has “eat fruit from you.” Matthew’s wording produces a Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth.” Jesus obviously intended the double entendre on “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” however the author of Matthew takes it further by recording an additional Hebrew pun that is not present in Mark's version. The author of Matthew in my opinion was aware of the Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth” and preserved it in his account.

 

“Fig Tree” תאנה

“Occasion [Ground of Quarrel]” תאנה

 

“Found” מצא

“Come Forth” יצא

 

“Leaves” העלים

“Forever” לעולם

 

“18 In the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road he went to it, and found {“Found” (מצא)} nothing on it but leaves {“Leaves” (העלים)} only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come {“Come Forth” (יצא)} from you again {“Forever” (לעולם)}!” And immediately the fig tree withered.” [Matthew 21:18-19 The Passion: The Poetry of God]

 

I would be interested in your views on this passage and its implications concerning the original text of Matthew.

 

Jerry

 

 

I am guessing that in your view, the existence of these puns is proof that the original text of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

 

Assuming the translation from Greek to Hebrew is correct, these do have the potential to be puns/poetic word play. (I have a tendancy to want to translate based on the translated from Greek English, and say that L'olam is potentially not accurate. L'olam can mean forever, or it can mean this age or a future age. To emphatically say forever, the standard convention used is, l'olam vaed. But then, I have to remember, it must go from Greek to Hebrew and I don't know Greek.   

 

This example does have the potential for poetic word play. But, does this mean the text was written in Hebrew? Does the wording prove that the text was written in Hebrew?  While I have always thought that Matthew had the possibility of orginally being Hebrew or Aramaic, since we do not have an original, we can not be sure.

 

Matthew has the most Hebraisms. I grew up in a family which spoke a mixture of English and Yiddish. Yiddish speakers, speak English with a very pronounced method and order of words which comes from Yiddish. Even writing in English, the Yiddish expression is very evident. (I had to spend time learning to speak without the Yiddishisms when I got out in the business world because I was somewhat difficult to understand. I still sometimes use a different word order even though I am speaking English only). So, Matthew could have been written in Greek, by a Hebrew speaking Jewish person or Matthew might have been translated to Greek.

 

But, I tend to be highly literal and detailed so I would be very difficult to convince, while I usually leave an opening for possibilities.  

[nebula]

The Poetry of Jesus at the Last Supper

 

At the last supper, Jesus creates a Hebrew poem by rhyming “body” and “vine” and rhyming “atonement” and “fruit.”

 

But Hebrew poetry is not based on rhyme.

[clontzjm]

 

The Poetry of Jesus at the Last Supper

 

At the last supper, Jesus creates a Hebrew poem by rhyming “body” and “vine” and rhyming “atonement” and “fruit.”

 

But Hebrew poetry is not based on rhyme.

 

While there is a difference between puns, alliteration and word connections, they are all poetic devices used to create poems. Thus as I stated, a poem was created. To your point, there isn’t a translatable word in English that exactly expresses the concept for Hebrew poetic devices being used in conjunction to produce a set of sounds. I have used the english word “rhyme” since it has alliterative connotations in English concerning the sounds that letters in words make.

 

A similar “rhyme” to what I’ve described is in Genesis 25:25:

“Hair” (שער)

“Esau” (עשו)

 

These two words are not derivative from the same root, however, the letters shin and ayin do produce a common set of sounds to produce a “rhyme.” I don’t believe that the English term pun is truly descriptive. A pun generally involves two words in English. In Hebrew puns often involve several words which is not really a pun but a play on a set of sounds. The English word rhyme is a play on a set of sounds often employing two or more words.

[clontzjm]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just FYI- I have no problem disagreeing with people who claim expertise. Sometimes I prove my point and they accept it, and sometimes they further explain their reasoning, which I deem as valid, and sometimes we simply disagree, which good scholars are used to.

 

There are certain accepted forms of puns in Hebrew, but generally the puns have to have a sufficiently similar sound, or a play on words.  

 

A simply pun in Hebrew can be found in Isaiah 5:7

 

'God looked for justice (mishpat) but only saw oppresion (mispach).'

 

For pure poetic verse, look no further the Genesis 1 where scripture says the earthd was without form and void which is a famously poetic expression of Tohu v'Bohu

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I am not sure that were are simply entangled in terminology. We both agree that Isaiah 5:7 and Genesis 1 contain puns. However I am not sure that we both agree that Genesis 25:25 is a form of Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. By context, Genesis 25:25 was meant to portray a Hebrew rhyme or wordplay between hair and Esau. The same type of rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is what I have indicated exists in Matthew 26. We don't have to agree and some people see poetic connections where others do not. If you can't see the rhyme or wordplay in Genesis 25:25 that you won't see the wordplay that I am pointing out since it is based on the same poetic principle. The wordplay in Genesis 25:25 is an accepted type of poetic device in Hebrew.

 

Jerry

 

 

Ok, I had to go get Genesis 25:25 in Hebrew, and yes, the word play is definitely there.  

 

Now, when moving to Matthew, are you translating the Greek to Hebrew or Using an existing Hebrew translation or Aramaic to Hebrew? Simply, where are you getting the Hebrew from?

 

Hello Qnts2,

 

I've studied several texts but for this passage I chose the Hebrew from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, George Howard; Mercer University Press, Second Edition, 1995. For this passage, I was struck by the fact that the Hebrew term for "atonement" was used instead of using the obvious pun between the Hebrew words "bread" and "forgiveness" which is found in the sermon on the mount for the Lord's prayer. It appeared that a deeper meaning than mere forgiveness was being impllied. Since the words "atonement" and "deny" meet even your criteria for Hebrew poetry, it appeared that this saying was potentially meant to be very specific. All of the apostles would end up fleeing that night, essentially "denying" Jesus (Peter literally denied Jesus). Yet Jesus was offering "atonement" even for the "denial." This would have had an emotional impact on the apostles when they realized the full implication of the atonement. Taking the Lord's supper is a public demonstration of having accepted ("atonement") Jesus - the very opposite of "denying" him.

 

 

 

Ok, so you chose to use the Howard Mercer translation of atonement. In light of other translations, Mercer to my knowledge stands alone. It brings up one issue. The word as written is plural. I do not know if the text calls for singular as the other translations or if the Greek word allows for atonement or forgiveness. I do not know Greek so I am at a definite disadvantage when dealing with a Greek to Hebrew translation. I am far more comfortable with English to Hebrew or Hebrew to English.  But the differences between this and other reliable translations does raise a question.

 

Another issue is the words chosen. Pri hagafen is a standard phrase translated as fruit of the vine/wine. Fruit of the vine is a phrase used repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. To break apart this phrase to use fruit and vine as a word play does not seem warranted. I do not believe this was intended as a word play. Rather it is a standard phrase and any perceived word play is simply coincidental.  

 

 

Unless the word play goes back to the Hebrew scriptures.

 

That's the point, I am not breaking them apart. "Fruit of the Vine" is the target of the wordplay and poetically morphs into "atonement of the body." Isn't that what the last supper symbolized and the offering of Jesus on the cross was about? The key to the poem is Fruit of the vine - Jesus used this precise term for a reason. When a poet uses a precise term it is often to create a wordplay. Jesus was a poet and I believe that the phrase Fruit of the vine was chosen by him to create a poem.

 

By the way, I looked for obvious poetics by going through the gospels in English so that I would not create wordplays in Hebrew. They are typically easy to spot in English. Normally a very specific descriptive and unique word or phrase placed in a passage - even though it is translated it is still very specific and descriptive. Then you have to go back into the native speaker's language and try to find what rhymes with what appears to be a poetic device. I chose this text because it had the poetic device that I had already spotted. It can take a long time until you finally understand the poetic device and the meaning that it is trying to amplify. You have to try to look at the passage as a poet would.  

 

Jerry

 

Since fruit of the vine is standard terminology, it was not specifically chosen to create a poem. It is standard terminology used multiple times in the OT in reference to wine.  Now, if you want to argue that it is used multiple times in the OT, anticipating the poetic use in the NT.  

 

The last supper did point to Jesus and what He would do, but the symbolism is specific in the Passover seder. The fruit of the vine is consumed 4 times. The actual cup is the cup of redemption. This would be a back reference into Exodus starting with Exodus 6:6.

 

Cup 1: Exodus 6:6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,

 

Cup 2: I will rescue you from their bondage,

 

Cup 3: and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.

 

Cup 4: ⁷ I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

 

Cup 5 - Elijahs cup: ⁸ And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’”

 

Today, only 4 cups a consumed.

 

But all of that is a different topic. Again, you are assuming that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Although that is not a standard belief, it is a possibility. Then, we must accept that not all words which match the rules, are necessarily poetic devices. In this case, I see the format as a stretch.

 

Hello Qnts,

 

Why don't look at an example that is less of a stretch? Jesus makes a pretense to find “grounds for quarrelling” with the fig tree in Matthew 21:19. According to Mark 11:13, it wasn’t the season for figs so the pretense os obvious. The Hebrew word for fig tree is spelled the same as the Hebrew word used in Judges 14:4 for “occasion [ground of quarrel].” Jesus uses the double entendre for “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” as the theme of a poem that includes pun for “found” and “come forth” and also “leaves” and “forever.” There is a difference between Matthew and Mark wording that points to a Hebrew structure for Matthew.

 

Mark 11:14 “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”

Matthew 21:19 ““May no fruit ever come from you again!”

 

Matthew uses “come from you” while Mark has “eat fruit from you.” Matthew’s wording produces a Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth.” Jesus obviously intended the double entendre on “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” however the author of Matthew takes it further by recording an additional Hebrew pun that is not present in Mark's version. The author of Matthew in my opinion was aware of the Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth” and preserved it in his account.

 

“Fig Tree” תאנה

“Occasion [Ground of Quarrel]” תאנה

 

“Found” מצא

“Come Forth” יצא

 

“Leaves” העלים

“Forever” לעולם

 

“18 In the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road he went to it, and found {“Found” (מצא)} nothing on it but leaves {“Leaves” (העלים)} only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come {“Come Forth” (יצא)} from you again {“Forever” (לעולם)}!” And immediately the fig tree withered.” [Matthew 21:18-19 The Passion: The Poetry of God]

 

I would be interested in your views on this passage and its implications concerning the original text of Matthew.

 

Jerry

 

 

I am guessing that in your view, the existence of these puns is proof that the original text of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

 

Assuming the translation from Greek to Hebrew is correct, these do have the potential to be puns/poetic word play. (I have a tendancy to want to translate based on the translated from Greek English, and say that L'olam is potentially not accurate. L'olam can mean forever, or it can mean this age or a future age. To emphatically say forever, the standard convention used is, l'olam vaed. But then, I have to remember, it must go from Greek to Hebrew and I don't know Greek.   

 

This example does have the potential for poetic word play. But, does this mean the text was written in Hebrew? Does the wording prove that the text was written in Hebrew?  While I have always thought that Matthew had the possibility of orginally being Hebrew or Aramaic, since we do not have an original, we can not be sure.

 

Matthew has the most Hebraisms. I grew up in a family which spoke a mixture of English and Yiddish. Yiddish speakers, speak English with a very pronounced method and order of words which comes from Yiddish. Even writing in English, the Yiddish expression is very evident. (I had to spend time learning to speak without the Yiddishisms when I got out in the business world because I was somewhat difficult to understand. I still sometimes use a different word order even though I am speaking English only). So, Matthew could have been written in Greek, by a Hebrew speaking Jewish person or Matthew might have been translated to Greek.

 

But, I tend to be highly literal and detailed so I would be very difficult to convince, while I usually leave an opening for possibilities.  

 

Hello Qnts,

 

I am enjoying our dialogue. We have plenty of clues that Matthew was constructed in Hebrew. The sermon on the mount and the olivet discourse in Matthew are so loaded with Hebrew poetry that they are undoubtedly Hebrew in origin - either verbal or written. The passion and the feeding of the four thousand are also obviously in Hebrew since they are not just saturated with poetry but employ dramatic alliteration to accent the dramatic moments in the narratives. We also start the text of matthew with two puns from the angel of the lord that repeat at the crucifixion indicating literary planning and structure for the entire work. But we have much more than that, we have a main Hebrew poetic device that runs almost beginning to end. It is used by almost every speaker - John the Baptist, the Devil, Jesus, the apostles, the crowd at the trial, and nature itself. A main poetic device that is used to provide cohesion to the entire gospel of Matthew is unarguable evidence of hebrew construction. If you reflect on the entire gospel of Matthew you can not ignore a singular Hebrew poetic device running through the entire work incuding sayings and narratives.  

 

The main linguistic wordplay in the gospel of Matthew involves the words “son,” “stone,” “build/building/will build” and is dependent on the Hebrew word for “son” pronounced “ben” as opposed to the Aramaic word for “son” pronounced “bar.” However, this is also somewhat ambiguous since both words are used in the Hebrew language and appear on the Old Testament. Nonetheless, the wordplay using “son (ben),” “stone,” “build/building/will build” appears about ten times in the gospel of Matthew and Jesus is depicted as using this wordplay multiple times including the Sermon on the Mount, the Confession of Peter, the Olivet Discourse, The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Vineyard. The continuous use of this Hebrew wordplay by Jesus and the author of Matthew indicates that while Jesus may have spoken Aramaic he definitely spoke Hebrew and was fluent enough to create complex wordplay in Hebrew. Below is a listing of the instances where the main wordplay occurs as listed in “The Passion: the Poetry of God”:

 

03:09 “Stones” (אבן) and “Sons” (בן)

 

04:03 “Son of God” (אלקים בן) and “Stones” “Bread” (לחם אבן)

 

04:06 “Stone” (אבן) and “Son” (בן)

 

07:09 “Stone” (אבן), “Son” (בנו) and “Prophets” (הנביאים)

 

07:23-25 “Built” (שבנה), “Stone” (אבן) and “Built” (בנה)

 

 

16:12 “Understand” תבינו))

16:14 “Prophets” מהנביאים))

16:16 “Son” (בן)

16:18 “Stone” (אבן)

16:18 “Will Build” (אבנה)

 

21:35-46 “Son” (בנו), “Stone” (אבן), “Builders” (הבונים) and “Prophet” (נביא)

 

23:29 “You Build” (שתבנו) and “Prophets” (נביאים)

23:30 “Prophets” (נביאים)

23:31 “Sons” (שבנים) and “Sons” (שבנים)

23:34 “Prophets” (נביאים)

23:37 “Prophets” (הנביאים) and “Sons” (בניך)

24:01 “Buildings” (בניני)

24:02 “Stone” (אבנ)

24:11 “Prophets” (נביאי)

24:15 “Understand” (יבין)

24:22 “Chosen (נבחריו)”

24:24 “Prophets” (נביאי)

 

27:40 “Build” (לבנות) and “Son” (בן)

 

27:51“Stones” (האבנים)

27:54 “Son” (בן)

27:60 “Stone” (אבן)

28:02 “Stone” (אבן)

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

Hello Qnts,

 

Since fruit of the vine is standard terminology, it was not specifically chosen to create a poem. It is standard terminology used multiple times in the OT in reference to wine.  Now, if you want to argue that it is used multiple times in the OT, anticipating the poetic use in the NT.  

 

The last supper did point to Jesus and what He would do, but the symbolism is specific in the Passover seder. The fruit of the vine is consumed 4 times. The actual cup is the cup of redemption. This would be a back reference into Exodus starting with Exodus 6:6.

 

Cup 1: Exodus 6:6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,

 

Cup 2: I will rescue you from their bondage,

 

Cup 3: and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.

 

Cup 4: ⁷ I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

 

Cup 5 - Elijahs cup: ⁸ And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’”

 

Today, only 4 cups a consumed.

 

But all of that is a different topic. Again, you are assuming that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Although that is not a standard belief, it is a possibility. Then, we must accept that not all words which match the rules, are necessarily poetic devices. In this case, I see the format as a stretch.

 

 

Why don't look at an example that is less of a stretch? Jesus makes a pretense to find “grounds for quarrelling” with the fig tree in Matthew 21:19. According to Mark 11:13, it wasn’t the season for figs so the pretense os obvious. The Hebrew word for fig tree is spelled the same as the Hebrew word used in Judges 14:4 for “occasion [ground of quarrel].” Jesus uses the double entendre for “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” as the theme of a poem that includes pun for “found” and “come forth” and also “leaves” and “forever.” There is a difference between Matthew and Mark wording that points to a Hebrew structure for Matthew.

 

Mark 11:14 “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”

Matthew 21:19 ““May no fruit ever come from you again!”

 

Matthew uses “come from you” while Mark has “eat fruit from you.” Matthew’s wording produces a Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth.” Jesus obviously intended the double entendre on “fig tree/occasion [ground of quarrel]” however the author of Matthew takes it further by recording an additional Hebrew pun that is not present in Mark's version. The author of Matthew in my opinion was aware of the Hebrew pun between “found” and “come forth” and preserved it in his account.

 

“Fig Tree” תאנה

“Occasion [Ground of Quarrel]” תאנה

 

“Found” מצא

“Come Forth” יצא

 

“Leaves” העלים

“Forever” לעולם

 

“18 In the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the road he went to it, and found {“Found” (מצא)} nothing on it but leaves {“Leaves” (העלים)} only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come {“Come Forth” (יצא)} from you again {“Forever” (לעולם)}!” And immediately the fig tree withered.” [Matthew 21:18-19 The Passion: The Poetry of God]

 

I would be interested in your views on this passage and its implications concerning the original text of Matthew.

 

Jerry

 

 

I am guessing that in your view, the existence of these puns is proof that the original text of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

 

Assuming the translation from Greek to Hebrew is correct, these do have the potential to be puns/poetic word play. (I have a tendancy to want to translate based on the translated from Greek English, and say that L'olam is potentially not accurate. L'olam can mean forever, or it can mean this age or a future age. To emphatically say forever, the standard convention used is, l'olam vaed. But then, I have to remember, it must go from Greek to Hebrew and I don't know Greek.   

 

This example does have the potential for poetic word play. But, does this mean the text was written in Hebrew? Does the wording prove that the text was written in Hebrew?  While I have always thought that Matthew had the possibility of orginally being Hebrew or Aramaic, since we do not have an original, we can not be sure.

 

Matthew has the most Hebraisms. I grew up in a family which spoke a mixture of English and Yiddish. Yiddish speakers, speak English with a very pronounced method and order of words which comes from Yiddish. Even writing in English, the Yiddish expression is very evident. (I had to spend time learning to speak without the Yiddishisms when I got out in the business world because I was somewhat difficult to understand. I still sometimes use a different word order even though I am speaking English only). So, Matthew could have been written in Greek, by a Hebrew speaking Jewish person or Matthew might have been translated to Greek.

 

But, I tend to be highly literal and detailed so I would be very difficult to convince, while I usually leave an opening for possibilities.  

 

Hello Qnts,

 

I am enjoying our dialogue. We have plenty of clues that Matthew was constructed in Hebrew. The sermon on the mount and the olivet discourse in Matthew are so loaded with Hebrew poetry that they are undoubtedly Hebrew in origin - either verbal or written. The passion and the feeding of the four thousand are also obviously in Hebrew since they are not just saturated with poetry but employ dramatic alliteration to accent the dramatic moments in the narratives. We also start the text of matthew with two puns from the angel of the lord that repeat at the crucifixion indicating literary planning and structure for the entire work. But we have much more than that, we have a main Hebrew poetic device that runs almost beginning to end. It is used by almost every speaker - John the Baptist, the Devil, Jesus, the apostles, the crowd at the trial, and nature itself. A main poetic device that is used to provide cohesion to the entire gospel of Matthew is unarguable evidence of hebrew construction. If you reflect on the entire gospel of Matthew you can not ignore a singular Hebrew poetic device running through the entire work incuding sayings and narratives.  

 

The main linguistic wordplay in the gospel of Matthew involves the words “son,” “stone,” “build/building/will build” and is dependent on the Hebrew word for “son” pronounced “ben” as opposed to the Aramaic word for “son” pronounced “bar.” However, this is also somewhat ambiguous since both words are used in the Hebrew language and appear on the Old Testament. Nonetheless, the wordplay using “son (ben),” “stone,” “build/building/will build” appears about ten times in the gospel of Matthew and Jesus is depicted as using this wordplay multiple times including the Sermon on the Mount, the Confession of Peter, the Olivet Discourse, The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Vineyard. The continuous use of this Hebrew wordplay by Jesus and the author of Matthew indicates that while Jesus may have spoken Aramaic he definitely spoke Hebrew and was fluent enough to create complex wordplay in Hebrew. Below is a listing of the instances where the main wordplay occurs as listed in “The Passion: the Poetry of God”:

 

03:09 “Stones” (אבן) and “Sons” (בן)

 

04:03 “Son of God” (אלקים בן) and “Stones” “Bread” (לחם אבן)

 

04:06 “Stone” (אבן) and “Son” (בן)

 

07:09 “Stone” (אבן), “Son” (בנו) and “Prophets” (הנביאים)

 

07:23-25 “Built” (שבנה), “Stone” (אבן) and “Built” (בנה)

 

 

16:12 “Understand” תבינו))

16:14 “Prophets” מהנביאים))

16:16 “Son” (בן)

16:18 “Stone” (אבן)

16:18 “Will Build” (אבנה)

 

21:35-46 “Son” (בנו), “Stone” (אבן), “Builders” (הבונים) and “Prophet” (נביא)

 

23:29 “You Build” (שתבנו) and “Prophets” (נביאים)

23:30 “Prophets” (נביאים)

23:31 “Sons” (שבנים) and “Sons” (שבנים)

23:34 “Prophets” (נביאים)

23:37 “Prophets” (הנביאים) and “Sons” (בניך)

24:01 “Buildings” (בניני)

24:02 “Stone” (אבנ)

24:11 “Prophets” (נביאי)

24:15 “Understand” (יבין)

24:22 “Chosen (נבחריו)”

24:24 “Prophets” (נביאי)

 

27:40 “Build” (לבנות) and “Son” (בן)

 

27:51“Stones” (האבנים)

27:54 “Son” (בן)

27:60 “Stone” (אבן)

28:02 “Stone” (אבן)

 

 

I run into one obstacle. The NT often uses wording which comes from the OT/Tenakh. So, if the Tenakh in Hebrew is poetic, the NT Greek, when translated to Hebrew will reflect the poetic of the original Hebrew.

 

Pslams 118:22 The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner.

 

Isaish 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

 

 

One question, you have one Hebrew word for sons, בניך. I have no clue what this is. Where does the form come from?

[Guest]

Do you see a difference between breaking bread, and celebrating the L-rds supper?

From what I understand we don't really do either in most Christian communities, but have trasmogrified some Scriptures

into what we call Communion... an emblematic practice, not without merit, but not according to Scripture perhaps?

The idea of Pesach/Passover was one of remembrance, a yearly feast and this was the context of the words of Jesus

so that as far as I can see it was meant to be done once a year in the context of a Passover celebration.

One of my concerns regarding communion is that it is really a tradition of men, and is largely divorced from anything

approaching a scriptural context, and where we can be fairly blazé in taking the the bread and wine, just saying a quick

prayer if we know there is sin in our lives, but nothing really powerful or meaningful or life-changing.

If Passover is approached with the added meaning that Jesus gave us, it would be a time of huge significance for

the Church as a whole and us as individuals...the Jewish people have a period of time before the feast where they

search out any yeast or yeast derivative representative of sin...sometimes they do this over a sustained period of

a week or more....Imagine how the Church might be transformed if we celebrated this feast with all our heart and

truly got right with G-d in every area. No longer would it be a habit or empty tradition, but something that had

Jesus at its centre.

Anyway just a few personal thoughts.

A few of my own personal thoughts here.

The Passover we have in Christ Jesus is distinct from the Passover in Moses. Both brought redemption via Promises made to Abraham, and are memorials to those prevoius promises being fulfilled. The emblematic practices do differ however. Wine is not an emblem of Moses Passover. It is an emblem of Rabbinic (Pharisaical) addition. Bread and wine is emblematic in scripture of the priesthood of Melchizedek.

 

Ge 14:18  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

 

Therefore, there is a biblical example which we see given in the law, which context remains connected to fulfillment of promises to Abraham, and a priesthood existing in the days of Abraham. Both, are connected to memorials to the Abrahmic covenants and promises being fulfilled.

The distinctions however are based upon the two covenants themselves.

Which Paul tells us the women are an allegory for them.

 

1st covenant Gen 15 of Princes

Ge 17:20  And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes <05387> shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

 

 

2nd covenant Genesis 17 of kings

 

Ge 17:6  And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings <04428> shall come out of thee.

Ge 17:16  And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings <04428> of people shall be of her. {she … : Heb. she shall become nations}

Ge 35:11  And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings <04428> shall come out of thy loins;

 

Sons given gifts, verses Sons which are heirs.

1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

2  And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

3  And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.

4  And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

5  And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

6  But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

I think there is alot missed, when we go to far as to make the shadows and examples the reality.

 

Edited August 4, 2013 by Joline

[Knowingtruth]

Ok, this topic might be challenging.

Tomorrow night, I am going to present the Passover Seder to a group of Christians in a house church. The people in this church are preparing a large amount of food, and the various symbolic foods of Passover. And they have four large bottles of Manischewitz wine for the four cups.

I usually use an Orthodox Judaism haggadah, and read what Jesus was doing during the Last Supper, to show from the symbolism what Jesus was doing and saying. The NT descriptions follow very closely with the Haggadah of Judaism (with the exceptions of the additions in Judaism for the loss of the Temple).

Anyway, this seder is the context of the communion and actually what Jesus was doing when He told the church to do this in memory of Him. The OT Passover is commanded to be done in memory of what God did, when He redeemed the Jewish people from bondage in Egypt.

The NT Passover is commanded to be done in memory of what Jesus did, when He redeemed believers from bondage to sin and the penalty.

There are several Holy days which are commanded. All point to Jesus, and at this point, Jesus has completed the symbolism of the spring holy days. There are two different kinds of Holy days. They are either feasts or fasts. The feasts are done in memory of what God has done for the Jewish people and are festivals/celebrations of what God has done. The fasts are solemn holy days, where the Jewish people look at themselves, and repent for any sins.

Now, there is the difference. The feasts are celebrations in memory of the wonderful things God has done and the fasts are solemn, and a time of repentance.

Passover is a feast, a celebration, and communion which comes from Passover is to be a feast, a celebration in memory of what Jesus has done for us. Not a solemn time of repentance.

So, why is communion a solemn event? It shouldn't be. It is a time of celebration and thankfulness in memory of what Jesus did for us.

1 Cor 11:17But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. ¹⁸ For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. ¹⁹ For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. ²⁰ Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, ²¹ for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. ²² What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

Now, let's go back to the house church I am going to tomorrow, to celebrate Passover. They are making two large turkeys, salad, potatoes, carrot tzimmes, hard boiled eggs. A huge dinner. And four very large bottles of wine. The seder starts at 6:30 pm. Suppose a group comes early, at 5:30 pm, and pulls out the food and wine. And they gorge themselves on the food to get their share before anyone else gets there. And they drink almost all of the wine.

When the rest arrive, they will probably find those who ate way to much and got sick. And they will find those who are drunk and fallen asleep. The guests who arrive at 6:30 pm will not find much to eat, and will be left hungry. They will likely not be pleased at all with the gorged and drunken people who arrived early and got their own suppers first. They will judge those as selfish and condemn them for their actions.

1 Cor 11:23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; ²⁴ and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ²⁵ In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” ²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

²⁷ Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. ²⁸ But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹ For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. ³⁰ For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. ³¹ But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. ³² But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

³³ So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. ³⁴ If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

Communion is a time when the body comes together to celebrate, in memory of what Jesus has done for us, and we eat the bread, and drink the wine together, caring for each other as a body/family. Do not do so in an unworthy manner, hogging the food and wine. Make it a celebration of what God did for us.

Christian communion was instituted by Paul to solve the problem in Corinth with his religious background. Jesus never said it should be done as a ritual in remembrance of Him. The two witnesses of the Last Supper, namely, Matthew and John do not record that it should be done as a remembrance. Mark who got much information from Peter who was also present for writing his Gospel do not mention the word remembrance. Luke's Gospel also do not contain this order in its earlier old manuscripts.

[RevelationWriter]

- And Don't Forget To Teach There Was No Wine Of Moses' Passover.

Edited August 25, 2013 by RevelationWriter