What is the Messianic equivalent to the eucharist?

[scapeg0at]

Just curious.

 

[ananda]

The Passover memorial celebration, I would say.

 

[mishkan]

Just curious.

What Christians call "the eucharist" is actually a misunderstanding of the Passover seder. The Gospels record Messiah's commentary on two of the elements present at the Passover. Later readers mistakenly took this to mean that only bread and wine were present at the proceedings.

This sort of reductionism is common when we read the Messianic Writings without knowledge of the Jewish background.

 

[pat34lee]

What Christians call "the eucharist" is actually a misunderstanding of the Passover seder. The Gospels record Messiah's commentary on two of the elements present at the Passover. Later readers mistakenly took this to mean that only bread and wine were present at the proceedings.

This sort of reductionism is common when we read the Messianic Writings without knowledge of the Jewish background.

It was not a Passover meal, however if it were, it would not have been a seder. They had not been formalized yet.

It was in Talmudic times, about from 10 C.E. to 500 C.E., that the modern Passover celebration and Passover Seder as we know it today began to take shape with the development of a structured framework for conducting the Passover Seder based on the Passover Seder conducted in Bnei Brak, Israel during the Roman occupation of Israel by a number of Rabbis. This structured framework became known as...(Drum roll, please!)...the Passover Haggadah. Click the following link to read about the Origin of the Passover Haggadah. Later on, folk-songs, hymns, benedictions, and educational stories that taught lessons about the messages of Passover were added over time up to and including the Middle Ages, and organized into the "instruction manual" for conducting the Passover Seder celebration we know today as the Passover Haggadah.

Passover Seder Meal : Origin And History
​

 

[Avodat]

The Eucharist (also known as Communion, the Last Supper, the Lord's Supper etc etc) is based solely on the the words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-33. These are the words from an eyewitness who was present on the night Yeshua ate the meal, described in the Gospels as having taken place on the night he was betrayed - namely Yeshua himself. Try reading the words in the first person singular ie '...on the night in which I was betrayed, I took bread...' - it gives a far better understanding of the import of what is said, rather than just reading Paul's writing of what Yeshua said.

So, in answer to the OP, the Eucharist is simply a re-enactment of that last meal Yeshua enjoyed with his disciples before they went outside, sang a few songs and had a time of prayer - before 'Judas' turned up. There is not an equivalent one in sense, because it is for all who believe in Yeshua as the Messiah, though MJ's tend to ignore it because of wrong theology making it some sort of latter day attempt at re-writing the Passover seder. The connection with the Passover comes about not so much because of what Paul wrote, but because of the fact that the Gospels refer to Yeshua indicating that the meal they ate, the night before he was arrested and put on trial, was 'the Passover' which he had sent his disciples to prepare in a village ahead of them. Do remember that Paul wrote his words before the Gospel writers put pen to paper, and they clearly did not feel the need to correct what he had written!

It is a memorial of that last supper they had together - as Yeshua says: Do this in memory of me. The bread and the wine were two of the items on the table to which Yeshua, in his words, gave special significance - they were NOT the only items on the table! They were symbolic of the Bread of Affliction and the Cup of Life and Joy - the latter being the new covenant, a 'Covenant of Life and Joy' offered to us through Yeshua having given up his life, voluntarily, to cover those sins we do not realise we have committed (those we know about we have to repent of, as always) - we can, at last, be at one with G_d by living as Yeshua showed us how to. It does not mean that he ditched the original Covenant or that G_d has finished with the Jews or with Israel or any of the greatly mis-guided theories that pass for theology!

 

[mishkan]

It's about time he updated that site, some! It lay there unchanged for years.

While Eli does present some good information, he is not the be-all-end-all for scholarly sources or chronology. That website is just one person's interpretation.

You have to realize that, while the Talmudic material may not have been written down until after Yeshua, it was started and preserved orally for a long time prior to the writing. Eli ignores the oral period.

All one has to do is read the Gospels with a knowledge of the traditional seder. While I'll grant that the seder may well have still been under development in the first century, there are definitely numerous touch points that demonstrate Yeshua did almost exactly the same thing I do every year.

Last year I wrote about this at "Yeshua and the Haggadah".

It was not a Passover meal, however if it were, it would not have been a seder. They had not been formalized yet.

It was in Talmudic times, about from 10 C.E. to 500 C.E., that the modern Passover celebration and Passover Seder as we know it today began to take shape with the development of a structured framework for conducting the Passover Seder based on the Passover Seder conducted in Bnei Brak, Israel during the Roman occupation of Israel by a number of Rabbis. This structured framework became known as...(Drum roll, please!)...the Passover Haggadah. Click the following link to read about the Origin of the Passover Haggadah. Later on, folk-songs, hymns, benedictions, and educational stories that taught lessons about the messages of Passover were added over time up to and including the Middle Ages, and organized into the "instruction manual" for conducting the Passover Seder celebration we know today as the Passover Haggadah.

Passover Seder Meal : Origin And History
​

 

[mishkan]

You are restricting your interpretation of the events to a summarized presentation that makes no attempt to reproduce the whole evening. At the same time, you are rejecting the much more detailed expansion that was a deliberately more detailed narrative. That is completely backwards.

Why would the Gospels "correct" Paul? He didn't say anything wrong. He simply made no attempt to detail the historical background. He didn't have to! His readers were full well aware that his topic involved a Passover seder.

Yeshua fully expected his students would gather each year for a seder. That's why he said, "As often as you do this." There was a "this" being done that was guaranteed to go on every year for the rest of their lives.

The Eucharist (also known as Communion, the Last Supper, the Lord's Supper etc etc) is based solely on the the words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-33. These are the words from an eyewitness who was present on the night Yeshua ate the meal, described in the Gospels as having taken place on the night he was betrayed - namely Yeshua himself. Try reading the words in the first person singular ie '...on the night in which I was betrayed, I took bread...' - it gives a far better understanding of the import of what is said, rather than just reading Paul's writing of what Yeshua said.

So, in answer to the OP, the Eucharist is simply a re-enactment of that last meal Yeshua enjoyed with his disciples before they went outside, sang a few songs and had a time of prayer - before 'Judas' turned up. There is not an equivalent one in sense, because it is for all who believe in Yeshua as the Messiah, though MJ's tend to ignore it because of wrong theology making it some sort of latter day attempt at re-writing the Passover seder. The connection with the Passover comes about not so much because of what Paul wrote, but because of the fact that the Gospels refer to Yeshua indicating that the meal they ate, the night before he was arrested and put on trial, was 'the Passover' which he had sent his disciples to prepare in a village ahead of them. Do remember that Paul wrote his words before the Gospel writers put pen to paper, and they clearly did not feel the need to correct what he had written!

It is a memorial of that last supper they had together - as Yeshua says: Do this in memory of me. The bread and the wine were two of the items on the table to which Yeshua, in his words, gave special significance - they were NOT the only items on the table! They were symbolic of the Bread of Affliction and the Cup of Life and Joy - the latter being the new covenant, a 'Covenant of Life and Joy' offered to us through Yeshua having given up his life, voluntarily, to cover those sins we do not realise we have committed (those we know about we have to repent of, as always) - we can, at last, be at one with G_d by living as Yeshua showed us how to. It does not mean that he ditched the original Covenant or that G_d has finished with the Jews or with Israel or any of the greatly mis-guided theories that pass for theology!

 

[visionary]

Why even give the Euchrist as semblance of comparison to our Lord and His?

 

[ContraMundum]

I really don't think one should mix up the practice of the Pesach Seder (which remembers the exodus) with the eucharistic ceremony (which remembers the Cross and anticipates the second advent).

Whether or not the eucharistic celebration was insituted on Pesach or not, it is not intended to remember the exodus in the way a Pesach seder does. It has another function. They may have some common form, but they have different functions and are instituted for different purposes. This is why I think both should be done at their own appointed times.

A lot of people get stuck in the either/or paradigm. Either it's all about Pesach or it's all about communion. I say it's both/and.

 

[mishkan]

I really don't think one should mix up the practice of the Pesach Seder (which remembers the exodus) with the eucharistic ceremony (which remembers the Cross and anticipates the second advent).

Whether or not the eucharistic celebration was insituted on Pesach or not, it is not intended to remember the exodus in the way a Pesach seder does. It has another function. They may have some common form, but they have different functions and are instituted for different purposes. This is why I think both should be done at their own appointed times.

A lot of people get stuck in the either/or paradigm. Either it's all about Pesach or it's all about communion. I say it's both/and.

Normally, I agree with the both/and approach, as opposed to either/or. However, when one is completely subsumed into the other, there isn't much room for claims of "both", since there is really only one.

All claims to a separate practice called "communion" are imaginary, as far as I can tell. Saying it exists doesn't make it so.

 

[visionary]

I really don't think one should mix up the practice of the Pesach Seder (which remembers the exodus) with the eucharistic ceremony (which remembers the Cross and anticipates the second advent).

Whether or not the eucharistic celebration was insituted on Pesach or not, it is not intended to remember the exodus in the way a Pesach seder does. It has another function. They may have some common form, but they have different functions and are instituted for different purposes. This is why I think both should be done at their own appointed times.

A lot of people get stuck in the either/or paradigm. Either it's all about Pesach or it's all about communion. I say it's both/and.

I agree that these two should not be compared or confused as if they are instituted to serve the same purpose. I disagree that the institute of Eucharist has biblical basis.

 

[ContraMundum]

I agree that these two should not be compared or confused as if they are instituted to serve the same purpose. I disagree that the institute of Eucharist has biblical basis.

You don't believe that there was a Last Supper where He commanded "do this in memory of Me" ?

 

[Avodat]

You are restricting your interpretation of the events to a summarized presentation that makes no attempt to reproduce the whole evening. At the same time, you are rejecting the much more detailed expansion that was a deliberately more detailed narrative. That is completely backwards.

Why would the Gospels "correct" Paul? He didn't say anything wrong. He simply made no attempt to detail the historical background. He didn't have to! His readers were full well aware that his topic involved a Passover seder.

Yeshua fully expected his students would gather each year for a seder. That's why he said, "As often as you do this." There was a "this" being done that was guaranteed to go on every year for the rest of their lives.

If you want a detailed theological thesis on the subject I could happily write it! This is not, however, the place - if only because of the number of posts it would take!

I purposely omitted great deal of detail simply because the OP is asking a basic question - what I wrote gave a starting point that could be used as a spring board for further questions.

I am sure that, had Paul mis-quoted Yeshua's words, the Gospels would have corrected what he wrote - they didn't because, as you say, and I implied, there was nothing to correct as far as they were concerned. Great minds... ?

Incidentally, the '...do this...' was in relation to the remembering of what Yeshua did whensoever they sat for the seder. It was not an instruction of the when but, rather, the what, that was most important. Yeshua knew full well they would continue with the Moedim - that was taken for granted - the 'new' aspect was to remember what he had done for them, as graphically illustrated at that last meal (Passover) and also just where that action of laying down his life fitted in with everything else.

 

[visionary]

You don't believe that there was a Last Supper where He commanded "do this in memory of Me" ?

That was not the question, nor should it be. What happened that night in its proper setting is full of meaning. Taken out of context and abused for other purposes is not commemorating that night.

 

[ContraMundum]

That was not the question, nor should it be. What happened that night in its proper setting is full of meaning. Taken out of context and abused for other purposes is not commemorating that night.

Not sure what you mean by abuse etc..are you advocating a communion once per year? Is that what you mean?

 

[Avodat]

That was not the question, nor should it be. What happened that night in its proper setting is full of meaning. Taken out of context and abused for other purposes is not commemorating that night.

We have that from Yeshua himself, in his own words, as an eye-witness. How do you see it being taken out of context and abused, and for what 'other purposes'?

 

[visionary]

Not sure what you mean by abuse etc..are you advocating a communion once per year? Is that what you mean?

As most MJ advocate in the Passover setting, Yeshua had His last Supper with His Disciples, and we should continue to do likewise. "Communion or Eucharist" are terms that never entered into the disciples conversation, then and nor should it enter in now.

 

[Avodat]

As most MJ advocate in the Passover setting, Yeshua had His last Supper with His Disciples, and we should continue to do likewise. "Communion or Eucharist" are terms that never entered into the disciples conversation, then and nor should it enter in now.

They are synonyms, along with the terms Lord's, or Last, Supper - they do not mean different things, at their root. There are many words that the disciples did not use in conversation that we now readily use to describe what The Book says - why pick on these two? Look at the meanings and the action taken in The Book and think again, or are you saying that Passover should take place of Communion? If the answer to that is 'yes', where would you place 1 Cor. 11:17-33 within the Passover meal - as a Messianic I assume you have found a theologically and Christologically correct place for them at the Passover seder?

 

[ContraMundum]

As most MJ advocate in the Passover setting, Yeshua had His last Supper with His Disciples, and we should continue to do likewise. "Communion or Eucharist" are terms that never entered into the disciples conversation, then and nor should it enter in now.

OK. So, you are saying once a year at Pesach. Not sure why you have a problem with the term eucharist, as it's pretty much the closest term to the word the Apostle uses in the Bible, as likewise the word communion.

 

[visionary]

OK. So, you are saying once a year at Pesach. Not sure why you have a problem with the term eucharist, as it's pretty much the closest term to the word the Apostle uses in the Bible, as likewise the word communion.

Isolate Eucharist to those who use it and for what meaning and purpose.. and if you participate in "eating His flesh/drinking His blood"... where did that myth come from? And with that question, you now enter into a theology that takes a person outside of scripture.