Is Yeshua the Passover?

[etZion]

God gave commands, and didn't always give details as to how to keep those commands. The answer in Judaism is that He gave the details in the Oral Torah. I can't find any evidence of an oral Torah.

So if God did not provide the exact details, a step by step, then there must be other ways to fill in the details. Either, a person individually does the requirements from their heart, or, there is a centralized method of agreement for the entire community.

The seder is the community agreement (set by the courts of judges). Contained in the seder is all of the commands. At the time of Yeshua, there was an agreed upon seder, which based on a comparison between the account of the Last Supper and the Mosaic law, fulfilled all the commands plus included many of the traditions which are also practiced today, such as reclining at the meal and the use of multiple cups of wine.

Yeshua did not object to traditions. Had the traditions which He did, been a violation of the law, then Yeshua would not be sin free. There is no objection to traditions as long as they do not violate the law. Jesus did object to adding to or taking away from the commands. So traditions are ok, but adding to or taking away from the commands is bad. The command for Passover, is to do it in remembrance of what God did when He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Adding another thing to remember would be adding to the command to remember one specific thing.

Where there is a change of priesthood, there is also a change of the law. The celebration of Passover changed, but that is ok. Only those who have Yeshua as the New High Priest celebrate the NT Passover.

Then your conclusion is still contradictive, because if Yeshua taught something that added to the Law of Moses, at that moment He became a sinner by adding to the commands of God.

The other point to make again, is that the Seder has a lot of symbolism in it that the Torah does not give or command, and much of it is in remembrance. So again your points are contradicting.

 

[Qnts2]

Then your conclusion is still contradictive, because if Yeshua taught something that added to the Law of Moses, at that moment He became a sinner by adding to the commands of God.

The other point to make again, is that the Seder has a lot of symbolism in it that the Torah does not give or command, and much of it is in remembrance. So again your points are contradicting.

I'm not sure you get what I am saying.

The Seder has symbolism which is part of remembering. In otherwords, the symbolism is used to fulfill the command to remember. The command does not say how the 'in memory' is to be accomplished, simply to remember. The symbolism does not break any command, but it is a method to do the command.


Yeshua was about to die, establishing a New Covenant. The command to do 'this' in memory of Him is a New Covenant Passover with a New command. Whenever there is a change in Priesthood, there is also a change in the law. A change in the law means a different covenant. The Old Covenant can not be altered but God can establish a New Covenant with a different Priesthood which means there must be a change/different commands.

 

[etZion]

I'm not sure you get what I am saying.

The Seder has symbolism which is part of remembering. In otherwords, the symbolism is used to fulfill the command to remember. The command does not say how the 'in memory' is to be accomplished, simply to remember. The symbolism does not break any command, but it is a method to do the command.

Yeshua was using the tradition for His purposes, not the command of the Passover, nothing wrong with editing or adding to tradition.

Yeshua was about to die, establishing a New Covenant. The command to do 'this' in memory of Him is a New Covenant Passover with a New command.

So as long as He was about to die, He could break the Law? I don't buy that. Yeshua had to keep the Torah in all regards, or He was a sinner...

Whenever there is a change in Priesthood, there is also a change in the law. A change in the law means a different covenant.

I disagree, the Law and the Covenant are not synonymous terms. The Law is part of the New Covenant, this is why we see the Torah going forth to the nations in the 1000 year reign... ranging from a restored Temple, to the feast, to the sacrifices, if there is a new Law, where can I read about it, all the changes, instead, I see the same consistent Law, even in the thousand year reign.

The Old Covenant can not be altered but God can establish a New Covenant with a different Priesthood which means there must be a change/different commands.

Just because of a transfer of priesthood, which actually happened a few times in the Torah, does not mean we have a completely different Law. The Law was transferred to the New Covenant. We can see this in Hebrews 8, where Yeshua is not a Priest on earth, because the Law did not change in this regard. And we also read of the various millennial scriptures that show the Law in effect, as stated above.

 

[Qnts2]

I guess we will have to disagree. We are not even on the same page as far as this goes. What you are saying makes zero sense to me. You claim the Mosaic law was transferred to the New Covenant, but it is very very clear to me that there is a change to the law, including the change which says all believers are priests in the New Covenant, which is against the Mosaic law of Levitical priests.

Yeshua was using the tradition for His purposes, not the command of the Passover, nothing wrong with editing or adding to tradition.



So as long as He was about to die, He could break the Law? I don't buy that. Yeshua had to keep the Torah in all regards, or He was a sinner...



I disagree, the Law and the Covenant are not synonymous terms. The Law is part of the New Covenant, this is why we see the Torah going forth to the nations in the 1000 year reign... ranging from a restored Temple, to the feast, to the sacrifices, if there is a new Law, where can I read about it, all the changes, instead, I see the same consistent Law, even in the thousand year reign.



Just because of a transfer of priesthood, which actually happened a few times in the Torah, does not mean we have a completely different Law. The Law was transferred to the New Covenant. We can see this in Hebrews 8, where Yeshua is not a Priest on earth, because the Law did not change in this regard. And we also read of the various millennial scriptures that show the Law in effect, as stated above.

 

[etZion]

I guess we will have to disagree. We are not even on the same page as far as this goes. What you are saying makes zero sense to me. You claim the Mosaic law was transferred to the New Covenant, but it is very very clear to me that there is a change to the law, including the change which says all believers are priests in the New Covenant, which is against the Mosaic law of Levitical priests.

Right, I see too many contradictions in your theology to agree with you, so we will just have to leave it.

I will leave you with this:

Compare:

Exodus 19:6
and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

to

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Peter was simply quoting the Torah.

 

[Lulav]

The Seder has symbolism which is part of remembering. In otherwords, the symbolism is used to fulfill the command to remember. The command does not say how the 'in memory' is to be accomplished, simply to remember. The symbolism does not break any command, but it is a method to do the command.

Quite

Yeshua was about to die, establishing a New Covenant. The command to do 'this' in memory of Him is a New Covenant Passover with a New command.

Are you saying that here added to the Torah?

Whenever there is a change in Priesthood, there is also a change in the law.

Who said? And a change in the law does not equate with a cancellation of the law.

A change in the law means a different covenant.

Beacause someone said the law has changed it means we are in a different covenant? Where does it say in the tenakh that there would be a change of the law?

The Old Covenant can not be altered but God can establish a New Covenant with a different Priesthood which means there must be a change/different commands.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

If G-d was going to change the priesthood or make a different one (which by the very word connotes more than one priest) why didn't he mention this in Jeremiah? There is only one mention of a new priesthood in one book out of 66.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There is also a tendency to equate the slaying of the Passover lamb with atonement for sin.

But sin offerings were not eaten by the offerer.

The nearest thing to the Passover lamb are the rules pertaining to peace offerings.

 

[Henaynei]

There is also a tendency to equate the slaying of the Passover lamb with atonement for sin.

But sin offerings were not eaten by the offerer.

The nearest thing to the Passover lamb are the rules pertaining to peace offerings.

Yeshua was the Ultimate sacrifice.
He was both the spotless lamb whose Blood applied to our hearts causes G-d to pass over us instead of dishing out the just meter for our rebellion (remember Israel were worshipping idols in Egypt) and the Kipporah the Blood of which covers the Testimony against us for our sins.

b'Shalom {iPod touch w/CF app}

 

[someguy14]

My Deliverer - YouTube

 

[Qnts2]

Quite


Are you saying that here added to the Torah?

Who said? And a change in the law does not equate with a cancellation of the law.

Beacause someone said the law has changed it means we are in a different covenant? Where does it say in the tenakh that there would be a change of the law?

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

If G-d was going to change the priesthood or make a different one (which by the very word connotes more than one priest) why didn't he mention this in Jeremiah? There is only one mention of a new priesthood in one book out of 66.

When Jesus told the disciples to 'do this in memory of Me', what He was telling them was how to celebrate the fulfillment of Passover in the New Covenant. Since the Mosaic covenant Passover law says to celebrate the Passover in memory of what God did when He brought the Jewish people out of Egypt.

A change in the law means a change of covenant. And a change of priesthood means a change of the law, and a change of covenant. No one was to add to or subtract from the law of the Mosaic covenant. Each covenant given by God was different then the previous covenant. Since the terms (law) of a covenant is a firm agreement, a change of the law requires an establishment of a new covenant with different terms and promises.

Throughout the Tenakh, and there are mentions of what God has planned in the future. In almost every book, there is more revelation about the Messiah and what the future time of the Messiah will be like. So, Jeremiah does not contain every detail. Jeremiah contains the idea that there will be a New Covenant which will not be like the covenant given at Mt. Sinai. Ezekiel has more, and Ezekiel goes further in describing this time, into the Messianic era and beyond.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

When Jesus told the disciples to 'do this in memory of Me', what He was telling them was how to celebrate the fulfillment of Passover in the New Covenant. Since the Mosaic covenant Passover law says to celebrate the Passover in memory of what God did when He brought the Jewish people out of Egypt.

Ok I agree. Does telling them how to celebrate the fulfillment of the Passover in the New Covenant abolish remembering God's redemption from Egypt?

I'm not going to debate semantics whether it's entirely new or adding to what was already 'customary'.

Joel Chernoff in his blog refers to it as a New Covenant Passover celebration. But he includes remembering God redeeming Israel from suffering from Egypt and remembering Yeshua's suffering for our sins.

In regards to Matzah Chernoff says;
" So Yeshua was saying that when you celebrate the Passover and remember Israel’s deliverance from suffering in Egypt, remember my suffering for your sins. Of course the disciples did not fully realize at that moment what this meant until after His death and resurrection."

In reference to wine Chernoff says;
" In the Scripture wine is often associated with blood and so Yeshua, after the meal was over, instructed His disciples that His blood represented a New Covenant."

In reference to the New Covenant;
"The New Covenant is the most important of all covenants between God and man."

Then in regards to Christians "Did You Know..."
…that the Christian Communion, that is celebrated at various times throughout the year, depending on what denomination and church you are associated with, is actually a Passover celebration. In other words the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You need to be in the New Covenant through New Covenant means to partake of its ordinances.

Key texts for those with ears to hear:

Col. 2:11,12
Rom. 4: 9-12

Adding to the list you noted, I'd also consider 1 Corinthians 5:6-8:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 1 Corinthians 5
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

​

 

[Lulav]

How does circumcision relate to Yeshua being the sacrificial Lamb of God? Circumcision only relates to the Temple and the sacrifice.

How do you see circumcision relating to the Temple? Abraham was circumcised and there was not temple for another what, 600 years? We know he took Isaac, both circumsied up to the mountain to sacrifice him. Instead G-d provided a ram. No temple but the object lesson of an animal substituting for man. Yeshua just reversed that as Isacc was not an unblemished sacrifice.

The eating is the eating of the sacrifice. There's no Temple.

I think I understand that Marc, no need to keep speaking to me as if I have no knowledge of the Torah.

Interesting points you raise... I am for circumcision and see its place, but the command regarding being circumcised is over eating the Lamb not the matzah, and the matzah only symbolizes.

So should we disregard all symbolization's and 'shadows'? Would we then not have to throw out much of the NT writings?

Were the feasts not a rehearsal for things to come?

Did Yeshua not say

"Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

and

For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.

 

[Lulav]

Two questions:
1) Are you speaking of circumcision of the heart or the actual physical circumcision?
2) If you are speaking of the actual physical circumcision, are you stating that one needs must be circumcised in order to "participate in the remembrance of salvation" (the salvation we receive as a result of Yeshua's sacrifice on the cross)?

I don't see how having something 'spiritual' to do something physical makes any sense.

The Torah says to physicality eat the Passover one must be physically circumcised.

Remembrance of Salvation. That was what happened 3,500 years ago.

Sing to the Lord, all the earth; Proclaim the good news of His salvation from day to day.

The reason we celebrate Passover when we do is because it was the time of year we were brought out, redeemed from, Egypt.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

How do you see circumcision relating to the Temple? Abraham was circumcised and there was not temple for another what, 600 years? We know he took Isaac, both circumsied up to the mountain to sacrifice him. Instead G-d provided a ram. No temple but the object lesson of an animal substituting for man. Yeshua just reversed that as Isacc was not an unblemished sacrifice.

I think I understand that Marc, no need to keep speaking to me as if I have no knowledge of the Torah.

I wasn't posting to you Lulav.

 

[Lulav]

I wasn't posting to you Lulav.

Then you shouldn't have quoted me and then posted that response.


Post

 

[Qnts2]

Ok I agree. Does telling them how to celebrate the fulfillment of the Passover in the New Covenant abolish remembering God's redemption from Egypt?

I'm not going to debate semantics whether it's entirely new or adding to what was already 'customary'.

Joel Chernoff in his blog refers to it as a New Covenant Passover celebration. But he includes remembering God redeeming Israel from suffering from Egypt and remembering Yeshua's suffering for our sins.

In regards to Matzah Chernoff says;
" So Yeshua was saying that when you celebrate the Passover and remember Israel’s deliverance from suffering in Egypt, remember my suffering for your sins. Of course the disciples did not fully realize at that moment what this meant until after His death and resurrection."

In reference to wine Chernoff says;
" In the Scripture wine is often associated with blood and so Yeshua, after the meal was over, instructed His disciples that His blood represented a New Covenant."

In reference to the New Covenant;
"The New Covenant is the most important of all covenants between God and man."

Then in regards to Christians "Did You Know..."
…that the Christian Communion, that is celebrated at various times throughout the year, depending on what denomination and church you are associated with, is actually a Passover celebration. In other words the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

Can we celebrate the Passover of the Mosaic covenant? Yes. I do both.

My point is not to confuse the two. Being under the New Covenant the commands of Passover are different, making it in memory of Yeshua, and a New Covenant Holy Day.

Now comes the second issue. For the Mosaic covenant Passover, we are to say that God brought us, (the children of Israel), out of bondage. As a distinguishing feature, God did not bring New Covenant Gentiles out of Egypt, in the literal sense, as commanded by the Mosaic Passover.

But God did, in a literal sense, send His Son, so all believers are included in the New Covenant Passover.

As a member of the Jewish community, a Jew, I celebrate our redemption from Egypt. As a member of the Messianic community, I celebrate redemption from sin.

 

[etZion]

So should we disregard all symbolization's and 'shadows'? Would we then not have to throw out much of the NT writings?

Well, I don't think we should disregard, but I don't think we can take a symbolism as reality or then it is no longer symbolism. We would come to distorted doctrines as if we are actually eating and drinking Messiah's blood and body, which would break all kinds of Laws, and also disgusting to even think about.

 

[mishkan]

Can we celebrate the Passover of the Mosaic covenant? Yes. I do both.

One must do both, or one does neither.

My point is not to confuse the two. Being under the New Covenant the commands of Passover are different, making it in memory of Yeshua, and a New Covenant Holy Day.

More division where there is none.

Now comes the second issue. For the Mosaic covenant Passover, we are to say that God brought us, (the children of Israel), out of bondage. As a distinguishing feature, God did not bring New Covenant Gentiles out of Egypt, in the literal sense, as commanded by the Mosaic Passover.

Two points on this:

1. The oft-overlooked dirty little secret being that a significant number of those brought out of Mitrayim were not of Hebrew origin, themselves. Egyptians are Gentiles.

2. Gentiles are part of the "brought us out" in just as literal a fashion as "Yeshua is our Passover lamb".

But God did, in a literal sense, send His Son, so all believers are included in the New Covenant Passover.

<staff edit>

As a member of the Jewish community, a Jew, I celebrate our redemption from Egypt. As a member of the Messianic community, I celebrate redemption from sin.

One and the same.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A "New Covenant Passover" is just a fiction, created by the Gentile Church so they would have something to claim as their own..

Actually, seeing the extensive amount of Jewish believers who ntoed the same throughout the ages, including in the early body of believers when they noted how it was different from the Passover that non-believing Jews did, claiming "fiction" can only go so far The Lord is not counter to continually stepping things up, as He's the boss and can do as He so wishes.