Does Modern Church Structure Closely Model the NT Church?

[Starise]

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

As that organizing gives rise to an increase in the size of the gathering new structures are required. It's easy to have a meeting in someone's house when there are only a dozen or three in attendance but when the congregation become city-wide a larger housing (no pun intended) is necesary.

Good point. The leadership needs to determine the right actions when congregations become larger. More children means you need a better equipped Sunday school. Larger churches mean larger groups of people in the same age group. Dedicated youth ministry is required if you want to help minister to that age group. Adults need to be ministered to. Their ages can range from 25-95, so groups are created to deal with those different places in life to consider.

The home group in a larger church is a nice way to deal with fellowship since it helps members to make connections.

Space can certainly be an issue when a smaller church begins to grow. One church I attended was a beautiful church with enough room for a medium sized congregation, but there was nowhere to park. How are you going to get to a church if you can't find a place to park? That church was forever destined to be small because it is mostly walk ins.

17 hours ago, Josheb said:

I've noticed how some posters have written about home gatherings, small groups, and small congregations, and some seeming to eschew institutional aspects of modern Christianity. It should be remembered there was a Council in Jerusalem where James and other Church leaders held authority. Peter, Barnabas, and Paul all came to them in submission, and they set the policies and "doctrines" of the NT-era Church. Some of what they decided changed almost immediately after they'd made their decisions (such as the matter of eating "unclean" food and the taking of the gospel to the Gentiles).

My NATURAL tendency is to seek smaller gatherings. It has a lot to do with my personality type. I don't like large groups of people. I consider the social element to be secondary to ministering and being ministered to. I have felt more comfortable in smaller settings in the past. Not that I don't believe it's important to be in touch with other Christian brothers and sisters. Where do I end up? In a 400-500 congregation often up front helping in worship. That's out of my 'comfort zone', but it is where the Lord has seen fit to put me for now.

My church is small compared to the 3000 member church not 20 miles away.

I have seen the results of a disorganized smaller church. The place where people show up and just say 'whatever'. It isn't a good feeling for me, especially if I am supposed to be participating in some way. After having been in numerous under staffed churches that were poorly organized, I can say without reservation that organization, planning and very importantly HELP are the way to go lol.

Not only that, but I'm finding meeting other brothers and sisters in Christ is a very uplifting positive thing. Those numerous connections have been nothing but positive. Granted smaller churches can still be responsible and organized, but I have found the types of people who go to those types of churches are often low pressure individuals who have no interest in organizing anything. They like informal laid back church. The only problem with informal laid back church is it often doesn't spur us on to anything. We are never challenged and we might not be using our gifts.

1 hour ago, Heleadethme said:

Except the LORD build the house they labour in vain that build it.  It's so important to remain in the simplicity of Christ rather than man-made versions of what He wants to create.  God is longsuffering and merciful, and will bear with us to some extent, He will sometimes be present and minister to individuals in various churches, just because He is merciful, but man cannot create life, only God can.  Everything that man creates is artificial and unable to beget life. 

We can always find justifications for what we do against His word, but if a congregation is too big to be able to obey the instructions and example of scripture, then apparently it must be time to form another congregation, not make a mega-church.

Amen! Man made never works long term. It's like trying to keep a kite aloft when there is no wind.

There is a series of podcasts on Google called The Rise And Fall Of Mars Hill. These are free.

It sheds light on a church that grew very large very fast. It had some good well meaning people in it. The leader was narcissistic and became too focused on all of the wrong things. That church basically imploded.

I believe it's a good way to see where things can go wrong in a large congregation.

I see churches changing over time. The large church has never been in many parts of the world. Due to government lock downs and rules, I see more smaller groups and less larger congregations. Thankfully no one is bothering our church so far. We are growing. What the future holds, I can't say.

 

[Heleadethme]

24 minutes ago, Starise said:

Good point. The leadership needs to determine the right actions when congregations become larger. More children means you need a better equipped Sunday school. Larger churches mean larger groups of people in the same age group. Dedicated youth ministry is required if you want to help minister to that age group. Adults need to be ministered to. Their ages can range from 25-95, so groups are created to deal with those different places in life to consider.

The home group in a larger church is a nice way to deal with fellowship since it helps members to make connections.

Space can certainly be an issue when a smaller church begins to grow. One church I attended was a beautiful church with enough room for a medium sized congregation, but there was nowhere to park. How are you going to get to a church if you can't find a place to park? That church was forever destined to be small because it is mostly walk ins.

My NATURAL tendency is to seek smaller gatherings. It has a lot to do with my personality type. I don't like large groups of people. I consider the social element to be secondary to ministering and being ministered to. I have felt more comfortable in smaller settings in the past. Not that I don't believe it's important to be in touch with other Christian brothers and sisters. Where do I end up? In a 400-500 congregation often up front helping in worship. That's out of my 'comfort zone', but it is where the Lord has seen fit to put me for now.

My church is small compared to the 3000 member church not 20 miles away.

I have seen the results of a disorganized smaller church. The place where people show up and just say 'whatever'. It isn't a good feeling for me, especially if I am supposed to be participating in some way. After having been in numerous under staffed churches that were poorly organized, I can say without reservation that organization, planning and very importantly HELP are the way to go lol.

Not only that, but I'm finding meeting other brothers and sisters in Christ is a very uplifting positive thing. Those numerous connections have been nothing but positive. Granted smaller churches can still be responsible and organized, but I have found the types of people who go to those types of churches are often low pressure individuals who have no interest in organizing anything. They like informal laid back church. The only problem with informal laid back church is it often doesn't spur us on to anything. We are never challenged and we might not be using our gifts.

Amen! Man made never works long term. It's like trying to keep a kite aloft when there is no wind.

There is a series of podcasts on Google called The Rise And Fall Of Mars Hill. These are free.

It sheds light on a church that grew very large very fast. It had some good well meaning people in it. The leader was narcissistic and became too focused on all of the wrong things. That church basically imploded.

I believe it's a good way to see where things can go wrong in a large congregation.

I see churches changing over time. The large church has never been in many parts of the world. Due to government lock downs and rules, I see more smaller groups and less larger congregations. Thankfully no one is bothering our church so far. We are growing. What the future holds, I can't say.

 

Flesh is always the culprit, and power certainly corrupts and feeds the flesh instead of starving it to death.  God's way of simplicity and sharing the power so to speak, in a more egalitarian way of doing things, helps to keep the flesh on a short leash by depriving it of 'opportunity'.

[Starise]

I generally question my concerns. My concern was originally in having the hunch something isn't quite right. I couldn't put a finger on it exactly so I asked the question. Speaking strictly of the church or body of Christ that's following His teaching. Not the separate apostate churches we know are up to no good.

You say the body of Christ has evolved. I believe this to be true.

Even though the letters to the churches in Revelation are clearly directed toward specific churches of that time period, those churches have been used as examples for self reflection to all other churches since.

In a nutshell a few of those churches were doing many things right, but they had overlooked several other critical things they should have been paying more attention to. Probably the most harsh comment in all was the 'lukewarm' comment. "You are neither cold nor hot, so I will spew you out of my mouth."

The same as we should continually be examining ourselves before the Lord, I think the same thing applies to churches. Looking inward to see if we dropped the ball. If we have dropped the ball, how can we correct it?

Many churches have revival times which are closely focused on our individual relationship with Christ. A time to renew. I think many churches assume that because they are successful in numbers and offerings brought in, they have no need for reflection. In some cases this could not be further from the truth.

The NT church wasn't a perfect success either. There is no such thing as a perfect church. I wanted to maybe examine ways that churches might have allowed other things into their church that are working against the church rather than for it. Some things sound great on paper when what they really are is a hindrance.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Starise

[Starise]

On 1/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Josheb said:

less you. Those statements are dripping with irony. 

 

On 1/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Josheb said:

cripturally speaking, there is only one Church. Scripturally speaking, the idea of an "apostate Church" is an oxymoron, if not an outright self-contradiction. 

While I see your points I feel I need to re construct my terminology in order to align with this discussion. This raises the idea that a deeper discussion on what we perceive the church to be might be in order because you may not be the only one who sees the term "church" as that body of persons on this earth who claim to be led by God.

This all began a long time ago of course, because one obviously corrupt organization began to call itself the "church" and wanted to be known by everyone as the "church".

Baptists, Methodists and most main line denominations also see the church as themselves. Representatives of Christ on earth.

For purposes of this discussion, it would probably be better to refer to three distinct bodies that call themselves churches.

-The apostate church

-The real church as ordained by the Lord

-Those organizations involved in an evil transition from one to the other, often involving denominational splits and extreme differences of opinion based on what the real church should be and what some are trying to change it into. In some denominations this is comparable to setting a small fire at the rear of the church. The fire eventually grows into an inferno where the best most spirit led people jump ship and let it burn. Fortunately some of the fires have been put out, but not many.

Yes, if strictly ONLY referring to the church as biblically mandated then there is only one true church. People will continue to call empty lifeless groups of people churches though.

On 1/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Josheb said:

Yet rarely do we see/read/hear anyone use those precedents as testimonies of the messiness of believers. Unity, the need for unity, is asserted but rarely is the fact the Church has never been wholly unified acknowledged or engaged. There would be no need for any call in scripture for unity were the NT Church unified. The first half of Ephesians 4 would be unnecessary. If the example of the NT Church is to serve as an example for self-reflection, then ALL of the NT should serve that purpose, including the "bad" parts. 

I might go so far as to say the one thing apart from the belief in Christ that the modern Church does share with the New Testament Church is its messiness; its imperfection. Imperfection is not always apostate. Apostasy is always imperfection. 

Agreed.

The church is often a very unkempt bride. God must have thought it was something to work with because you can't do anything with nothing. Not good thoughts to go to a church on Sunday and realize we are all still a bunch of misfits.

On 1/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Josheb said:

What is the scriptural basis for revival of the Church? What is the scriptural basis fro the revival of the Church as opposed to a given congregation that may have lost is vitality? Is it life that is needed, or vitality? Can a Church absent the life of Christ properly be called the Church? How about just a local gathering? Can a congregation need reviving? Again, what is the New Testament precedent for such views. 

Because most "revivals" don't "revive" anything but subjective experientialism. 

Just saying. 

You raise a good point in that while I think a church that has a dedicated 'revival' time can have a very good outcome all depending on the hearts and intent of those involved, it can also be a very superficial thing. Only God sees the heart. To even have such a time is a good thing in my opinion because we are hopefully examining ourselves before the Lord to see what we can do to improve our ways, to draw nearer to Him.

Revivals can be legalistic if it becomes something we do on, say an annual basis just because we have always had one. In my old church a revival was seen as a time to draw nearer to the Lord, at least this was the intent of it. A time to stop and look at ourselves. Confess sin.Turn from errant ways.Maybe similar to fasting, anything that we are trying to do to get closer to the Lord, to hear His voice.

In my opinion lack of a revival would be worse than having one where a few people were sincere.

On 1/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Josheb said:

Well let's all get back to that version of the Church!  That is the NT Church. How do we "recreate"  those structures? Shall we not sin that grace might more abound?!?!  

Honestly if I thought about it too much I probably wouldn't attend a church. I mean here i am Mr. Sinner getting with a bunch of other sinners to worship the Lord. That's the whole point of it I think -Worship, hopefully good teaching and maybe even engaging preaching. God is our structure, we are just tag alongs.

Edification comes to mind. We are edified in church ( or should be). We also seek to edify.

On 1/28/2022 at 5:07 PM, Josheb said:

As most of you know I have some modicum of knowledge pertaining to our history. One of the things I have learned reading the ECFs, the Reformers, the founders of various theologies, and the times in which they lived is that these wayward movements and cries for orthodoxy have always existed, invariably exited paradoxically, were usually selective and themselves quite messy, and usually ineffective, often leading further away and not closer to the NT precedents. 

It is why Christ came, lived, died, and was resurrected. 

We're a mess. We're a mess individually and collectively. 

I say put the bit in the mouth and run into the fray (with Bible in hand). 

The field you are in is likely a daily reminder of this. Most other people only see the fake facade part of individuals on social media and the like. Messy is probably a good description. No matter how many churches pride themselves on how great they are.

Maybe they(we) need to look in the mirror just a bit more? This is why I think a church that's trying to be relevant according to the word is better than one that thinks it's already arrived. It's sort of like the sin of pride. The minute a church says they are ok is the minute they need help. 

[Starise]

On 1/28/2022 at 5:29 PM, Heaven_Bound said:

Do you mean following what can be read within the Book of Acts?

 

1. Speaking in Tongues

2. How they Water Baptized [formula]

3. Preaching Gospel of Christ Death Burial Resurrection

 

 

 

I don't doubt we have a God who will continue to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants and however He wants. A church could be doing all of these things and still be far from the Lord. It all depends on several factors.

Let all things be done decently and in order.

Let everything be done according to the bible.

Let our lives reflect the things we do in church throughout the week. Otherwise it's just empty legalism.

 

[Starise]

On 2/2/2022 at 1:05 PM, Josheb said:

Point of clarification: I don't restrict the membership of the Church to those on earth. It includes those who have died and gone to heaven. It includes those redeemed and regenerate believers in the resurrected Christ past, present, and future.

. Another point, though not sure if it's one of clarification: just because others do so and it is a common practice or convention, I don't have to participate in it. This is why I use the word "Church" with a capital "C" to refer to the ekklesia, those called out of the world in service to God through His resurrected Son and I use the word "congregation" to refer to a specific local body of believers. Only on occasion do I use the small "c" church and usually within some specified context informing the distinction. Terms like "denomination" or "sect" also can be used. 

This, imo, is clearer communication that avoids many of the commonly occurring errors resulting from the use of one term for all. 

 

 

Gotta go. I'll check out the rest of your post later.

I remember going over similar thoughts with you in another thread awhile back where there was discrepancy in how we look at the kingdom. You seem to have seen that in a different light as well.

The "Kingdom" and the "Church" might be similar in your views then?

[Anne2]

On 1/27/2022 at 8:43 AM, Josheb said:

Depends on what you mean by "Church" and "structure". 

If you mean "the body of Christ" then I do not think it looks much different than it did in the NT era.... structurewise. If, on the other hand, when using the term "structure," you mean the institutional, organizational, hierarchical, and/or liturgical aspects of Church life then the modern Church looks enormously different from the NT era. While some of the changes are either not helpful or perhaps even damaging my view is that most of them are either immaterial or positive. 

 

For an example of the former, our practice of the Lord's Supper is an abysmal and wretched shadow of what was practiced in the NT era. We call it "Communion" or the "Eucharist" (which means "thanksgiving"), and the priest doles out pieces of bread, crackers, or wafers and thimbles of wine or grape juice while leaving the individual parishioner to contemplate whatever it is they do. The Lord's Supper was a supper, a full meal with all kinds of food, not just bread and wine. It was a full meal with fellowship.  Similarly, the notion of one man (or woman) pastoring scores (hundreds or thousands) of people, being the one guy solely responsible for their spiritual well-being is completely without root in the NT. That was not the sole role of a priest, minister, or pastor in the NT era and he was not the only one in leadership thusly responsible. Stages, pulpits, special garments? None of them existed in the NT era, but neither do I find them particularly problematic. Another's wearing a collar backwards does not affect my worship of God one way or another. The practice of singing songs and listening to one man teach and then calling the service quits before heading back home is also not an NT-era practice but it can be a very beneficial practice. Most non-denominational congregations practice this wholly unscriptural practice every week but it's not a destructive practice (it's ironic because the non-denoms are the ones most likely to protest the modern Church practices and call for a return to NT-era precedents). 

 

And what shall we say about television, cable, and the interwebs?  

 

Although I disagree with the author's conclusions, I recommend the book, "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna. It is a brief, easy to read summary of changes that have occurred in the way we organize, especially on Sundays (or Saturdays), and how the Church has assimilated practices that were Jewish and non-Jewish (ie., pagan) in origin, not something Jesus instituted, or the early Church practiced. Plot reveal (stop reading now if you don't want to know why the book was written): The book is an apologetic for the house-church movement, the de-centralization of Christianity by the forming of smaller gatherings that meet in homes. I have nothing wrong with that expression of structure and worship, but neither do I think it necessary or required. Everett Harrison's "The Apostolic Church" is also a fairly good read if there's an interest in early Church politics and its effects of organization and structure. Those with an academic bend and an interest in the sociological aspects of Christianity might find Wayne Meeks, Gerd Theissen, and Peter Berger of interest. The first two have written about the sociology of the early Church and Berger has written about more contemporary matters.

 

 

.

How do you say the Lord's supper was a full meal? Christians were being persecuted early on. How could they have had facilities for large congregations? They were not an open assembly. 

How do you say one man being responsible for the spiritual well being. The only one coming close to that is the roman bishop. Not the rest of the early Catholic Church

[Starise]

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

What I probably wrote earlier is, I believe, fairly simple and presuppositionally necessary to grasp: As THE Creator, God sovereignly almighty and therefore ultimately the ONLY "King" of all. There' only one kingdom and it is God's. All other "kingdoms" are subject to t God and His kingdom. The moment the word "God" is accepted certain logically necessary conclusions ensue, beginning with... 

Ok got it. While I agree, I see kingdoms as strongholds. Lesser powers trying to set themselves up as kingdoms. Poor imitations of what will come. Everything is under God's umbrella as you say. 

[Anne2]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Give 1 Corinthians 11 a read. In addressing the (many) divisions existing in Corinth, he wrote the following:

1 Corinthians 11:20-22
 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,  for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.  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. 

So... there were people there who were drinking to the point of intoxication and those who were coming to the Lord's supper hungry, so hungry that Paul would ask them, "Don't you have homes in which to eat?" If there is enough wine there on which to get drunk then they're not handing out thimbles of grape juice . No, there's at least enough wine there for more than one person to become intoxicated. Similarly, if there were people coming there to satisfy their hunger then it's not wafers that were being handed out. However, the most important factor in understanding this is the fact the Lord's Supper was the Passover feast. The Lord's Supper was a supper. Not only was it a supper, but it was a commemoration of Christ as the Passover lamb. When Jesus had his last supper, it was the Passover meal. Go back and re-read the gospel accounts: it was a meal. Go back and re-read the Exodus account of the first Passover meal: it was a meal. After his resurrection this meal became a matter of honor and celebration. The slaves are free! 

That is how I can say it was a full meal. 

Yes, Christians were persecuted early on. That's why they met in people's homes and not in open assembly. That does not change the fact they met together to have meals and one of those meals they shared was a meal honoring Christ and the perfect, blemish-free lamb. 

Let me clarify that comment. 

Most congregations have a priest, minister, or pastor. For the sake of this conversation all three terms may be considered synonymous. In addition to a pastor, most congregations have a group of men and/or women who serve as elders or vestry members or presbyters or whatever they may be called in a given fellowship. These are usually leaders with the administrative aspects of the governance of the congregation. That pastor is the one charged with the spiritual guidance of the congregation. He gives a sermon every week, is available day and out for guidance and prayer and may also serve as an authority as either scripture directs, he perceives scripture to direct, or the governing body establishes. In sectarian congregations the pastor wears special garb designating him/her as pastor, whether it be a suit and tie, a backwards collar or full vestments. 

That's not the way it existed in the early days of the church. The early church had pastors but pastors were not the head of a congregation. In the early church gifts were distributed among the fellowship's members and any and all contributed. In some instances this led to disarray or disorderliness. Paul wrote about this. 

If the congregation you attend on Sunday (or Saturday) has one man who stands up on a stage and speaks from a pulpit or from behind a lectern and is the one responsible for providing a message for the nurturance of everyone else in the gathering then you have one person who is responsible for the spiritual well-being of everyone listening. Yes, those people go whom with that content self-responsible for what they do with that message but that does not change the fact they got that onus from another. That guy is not a Roman bishop, and that's not how it was done in the NT era.  

• There were no church buildings in the NT era.
• There were no stages in the non-existent buildings upon which one man would stand to lead. 
• There were no pulpits or lecterns on the non-existent stages in the non-existent buildings. 
• There was no special attire for the one not standing behind the non-existent lecterns on the non-existing stages in the non-existing buildings. 

I am not saying any of it is wrong. I am simply saying it is different. 

Acts and the epistolary tells us much about how the early Church worked. I did NOT invent anything I posted. 

I agree concerning attire, lecturns etc. The passover I disagree. I believe the question about houses to eat in concerned it being "done" as a passover meal, which was not the same as the Lord's supper. Basically if you are looking to fill your belly, eat at home. If you are looking to have a traditional seder, do that at home. Neither of those are the Lord's supper.

 

It is a memorial service. It has meaning. Teaching it is the sacrifice of the Lords passover.

Ex 12:25  And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
Ex 12:26  And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service?
27  That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
 

Biblically it consisted of the passover sacrifice, eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

Where is all that wine????

The seder of the first century added (customs/ traditions) to the (Seder) order of the service.

Have you ever attended a (traditional) jewish seder?

Well it can take several hours. This is purposely done to spread out four glasses of wine.

Now if some were doing their seders quickly to attend the Lord's supper, they well could be drunk.

I know me and my friends which attended quite a few, talked privately about a few who were getting tipsy at the ones we attended. And those seders were at least an hour and a half long. Well, I would say tipsy, my friend used the term drunk. I believe the Lords supper was the one cup, and the bread. I also believe Jewish Christians kept passover order/SEDER service. Perhaps no differently than circumcision. A mans duty and service to his sons in the household?  Whether it was altered by some in abstaining from wine, to attend the Lord's supper who knows. It was more than, as well as distinct as a seder service.  There may have even been some wiping of feet, for the messianic Passover? Just my opinion. Paul did say keep the tradition handed down by them (apostles) in keeping the feast

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Anne2

[Anne2]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Let me clarify. I did not mean to suggest the New Testament Christians were celebrating a seder. I was simply referencing the history of the Lord's Supper and its Old Testament roots. These are indisputable. If you'd like me to walk through the scriptures by which I say that I will gladly do so. Just ask. 

I was asked how I posted what I posted and the how is found in scripture, not my personal opinions. The short answer to the questions asked is, "Scripture! Scripture plainly read as written, as stated," with little or no embellishment. I simply added commentary in my last post to aid in the examination of scripture that I assume you might investigate for yourself. 

1 Corinthians 11:17-26
But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.  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.  For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.  Therefore, when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry, and another is drunk.  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.  For 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; 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."  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."  For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

 

Jesus was in fact demonstrably eating the Passover meal and it words he spoke on that occasion that Paul references in his exposition of the "Lord's supper." Scripture, not me, ties the Lord's Supper to the Passover. 

How?

Scripture.

Scripture plainly read as written without additional interpretation added. 

It's kind of my thing . 

Luke 22:1-20
Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching.  The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.  And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.  And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him to them.  They were glad and agreed to give him money.  So, he consented and began seeking a good opportunity to betray Him to them apart from the crowd.  Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.  And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it."  They said to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare it?"  And He said to them, "When you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house that he enters.  "And you shall say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"'  "And he will show you a large, furnished upper room; prepare it there."  And they left and found everything just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover.  When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him.  And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."  And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."  And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."  And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

 

He was eating a Passover meal. 

Wow I wish I could master breaking up a post to respond. But for some reason I cannot.

My post did not disagree Jesus ate a traditional passover. I didn't even dispute that Hebrew Christians also continued to do so as well. Rather this big meal with all the wine was added traditions by the Pharisees. Nothing wrong with that either. It is not the Lords supper.

His seder (order of service) He instituted afterwards, for his memorial feast. My opinion on that scripture goes like this. I think with the rise of Messianic Judaism, we hear much a similar thing. There are Messianics (not all) that accuse Christianity as not keeping "Passover". Why? because we don't keep rabbinic tradition. A similar division was going on here, IMO. Gentiles could not eat the passover. And some were making a show in having already had their passover. As if the Lord's supper was meager thing in comparison for Gentiles. Gentiles and or Jews were showing up looking to make the Lord's supper as some big meal like the Jew's did. As if indeed the Lord's supper was a meager thing in comparison. Paul took care of that by saying you have houses to eat in. That neither the Passover of the circumcision, was no better than eating a big meal at home. It is similar to what some Messianics claim today.  Having bread and wine is for our passover feast, adding to it doesn't make it more so, nor not adding to it less so.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Anne2