What is your personal view on Communion/Eucharist/L-rd's Supper?

[Zeek]

It does not give a genealogy in Genesis for this King, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have one. To say that would mean he wasn't human.

He did not 'appear' like in Genesis, 12:7, 17:1 and 18:1.

Hi...I don't think Heb 7:1-3 is for a moment suggesting he doesn't have a geneology per se only that for all intents and purposes He appears to have no beginning and no end, but he is merely the 'shadow' of the reality which in in Jesus our great High Priest who is also the 'Aleph and the Bet', without beginning and without end.

Scripture is never non-sensical...if it ever seems such you can bet your life that it is mans fallible understanding that is making no sense.

 

[Zeek]

I don't understand what you mean by Melchizedek Priesthood is not transferable can you explain that further?

Sure....Heb 7:24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.
The Greek infers that this is non-transferable, and is a Scripture that many Mormons who hold to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods being in operation amongst them are often stumped by.

That is also why I shy away from the idea that because Jesus has a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, we share in it. I don't really know if there is such thing as a Melchizedek priesthood...it is merely a means of referencing that Jesus is our Great High Priest eternally and does not follow the natural order of Levitical priests...the whole emphasis is on Melchizedek having no beginning or end, not on any other specifics.

 

[Zeek]

If I may ask, what is your thought concerning Exodus 19:5-7 when the Lord (in an era where the Holy Spirit was not available at the same level He is for believers today) that he intended for Israel to be a NATION of KINGS/PRIESTS? Do you feel that what the Lord was not to be taken as saying he desired for all in Israel to be priests/kings due to how the Levites/sons of Aaron were given the priesthood and role of being stewards of the Tabernacle and Temple? Or are you of the mindset that the Lord gave designations of priesthood in the Mosaic Law to certain groups while simply not spelling out all of his long-term goals in setting up differing variations of priestly work ..as it concerns what occurred later with David and the Messiah as well as others in existence who were followers of the Lord and yet priests outside of the Aaronic priesthood?

Would love to hear your thoughts on whether or not you feel what was mentioned in Exodus 19:5-7 to Israel is connected to what the Lord also said in Isaiah 61:5-7 / Isaiah 61 ("you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God")--a text that has been applied to Gentiles as well as Jews when it came to the redeemption that would be found in Messiah. The same goes for what was shared in Exodus 19:5-7 when seeing how the same concept seemed to be extended to all of God's people later...in regards to Revelation 5:9-11 and Revelation 20:6 when John spoke of the future/declared "Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

Hi...will get back to you over the next day or two...I have run out of time.
Interesting about the book of Jasher, although I am not sure it correlates with the one mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.

 

[Lulav]

Hi...I don't think Heb 7:1-3 is for a moment suggesting he doesn't have a geneology per se only that for all intents and purposes He appears to have no beginning and no end, but he is merely the 'shadow' of the reality which in in Jesus our great High Priest who is also the 'Aleph and the Bet', without beginning and without end.

Scripture is never non-sensical...if it ever seems such you can bet your life that it is mans fallible understanding that is making no sense.

Hey Zazel, To say one has no mother or father eliminates any genealogy, but if this is Shem his genealogy goes all the way back to Adam. Even Yeshua had a mother and Father.

(PS, I think you meant Alef and Tav)

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So you are of the mindset that he only did it because he was born a Jew?

Never said that he did things only because he was a Jew (nor have I ever expressed such on the forum at all). What was stated was that Jesus, as a Jewish individual, would have been trained to keep all of the Torah..something that was standard for Jewish men since youth, as they had to meditate on all the Laws/memorize them and would have been trained to see Shema.

Obviously, not every Jewish person was righteous or in the place where they feared the Lord....but that didn't mean that learning to fear the Lord/honor the Torah in what the Lord commanded was not apart of the heritage of what it meant to be a Jew/Hebrew. For to be in covenant with the Lord as His people meant to be in accordance with what He had commanded them....and as the Lord himself was in view when He chose to become a man, it makes sense that he would honor what He had commanded.

As Christ was a Jewish man born under the Law from a righteous family, it's logical that He would have sought to walk by it.

There is no place in Luke that says he ate any lamb.

With Luke, when it comes to what Christ said in response to the disciples in their inquiry about how to get things ready for the Passover, the fact that he directed them to where to get supplies/material prepared is behind the reason of others noting that Christ (who honored the Feasts/what was commanded) was prepared to partake of the Passover Lamb.

Matthew 26:17
[ The Lord’s Supper ] On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Matthew 26:16-18

Mark 14:12
[ The Lord’s Supper ] On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Mark 14:11-13
​

Luke 22:7-9 Luke 22 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”

9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked. 10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.”

13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

​

Of course, from there, one must do examination of what Christ meant when he said that it was time for He/his disciples to eat the Passover meal (based on Exodus 12 ) and what it meant when the author of Luke noted plainly that the disciples had indeed prepared the Passover....and that Christ noted where He'd not eat it again (the Passover he eagerly desired) until the fulfillment of the Kingdom.

Deuteronomy 16 clarifies how God required the Passover to be observed, and specifically following the inauguration of the Tabernacle (and later the Temple). The commands throughout Deuteronomy 16 (as vs. Deuteronomy 16:6) for the Israelites to only offer their sacrifices at “the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there” refer to the various locations throughout the centuries of the Tabernacle (and later the Temple). These commands gave rise to what became known as the three Pilgrim Festival seasons, where males from all over Israel were expected to attend three times per year (Deut 16:16) to make offerings of animal sacrifices and participate in the eating of the sacrifices (hence Feasts). Essentially, Deuteronomy 16:5 forbade the slaughtering of the lambs “within any of thy gates” which had been commanded from the Exodus until that time.

In regards to the Pilgrim feasts, this is something Christ would have known as one who adhered to the Law since He himself had that demonstrated in the life of his parents,

Luke 2: 41-43
​

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned

​

[/quote]
​

​

Subsequent verses in Deuteronomy 16 show how the same principle about sacrificing only at the Tabernacle or Temple was equally applied to the other two pilgrim festival seasons of Pentecost and Tabernacles (including the Eighth Day).

In regards to the dynamic of how pilgrims handled Passover, I think it's reasonable what was stated in Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Mark 14:13-16 by Walter W. Wessel:

"13-16 Jesus gave explicit instructions to two of his disciples (v. 13). We know from Luke that the two were Peter and John (Luke 22:8). The "man carrying a jar of water" would easily be identified because customarily women, not men, carried water jars. He was to lead them to the house where the owner had a guest room (Mk 14:14). Jewish custom required that if a person had a room available, he must give it to any pilgrim who asked to stay in it, in order that he might have a place to celebrate the Passover (cf. SBK, 1:989). Mark seems to indicate that Jesus had made previous arrangements with the owner of the house. The upstairs room is described as "furnished and ready" (v. 15), i.e., with what was necessary for the celebration: table, couches, cushions, etc. The disciples would have to get the food and prepare it. This would include the unleavened bread, wine, bitter herbs, sauce haroset, and the lamb. The two disciples went into the city as instructed by Jesus, found everything as he had said, and made the necessary preparations (v. 16)".
​

To say Christ could not have eaten a lamb seems to leave out a lot of factors, specifically related to how it'd be a bit pointless for Christ to ask his disiples to make preparations for Passover Meal if there was never an intention to partake of it. And even with the Passover Lamb being sacrificed later, there's something to be said on events not necessarily being normal when Christ was betrayed. The Old Testament Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:6) was sacrificed in the evening (specifically beyn ha arbayim - between the evenings) of the 14th day of the first month, toward the end of the day. Moses and the Children of Israel then ate the Passover lamb meal during the night of, the beginning of the 15th day of the first month, which is the First Day of Unleavened Bread.

But for others saying Christ did not eat the Old Testament Passover meal on the night he was betrayed since it was the beginning of the 14th day of the first month, in the upper room with His disciples....I think there can be validity in considering the possibility that the disciples/Christ ate in haste for one time ....eating the meal early on before the actual lamb was sacrificed. Granted, Christ was destined to be sacrificed as our Passover lamb on the afternoon before the Passover meal....but as He already had a precedent for doing things distinctively different at certain times...and He is the Boss.

Christ died on the 14th day of the first month, at the same time of day that the High Priest was sacrificing the Passover lamb in the Temple that year. Christ fulfilled the symbolism of the Passover lambs exactly by giving his life just as the unblemished Passover lambs began to be slain on the 14th of Nisan. As the Passover Lamb (Leviticus 23:5 and Exodus 12:6 ) was sacrificed on the 14th day of the first month, beyn ha arbayim, Christ also died, on the 14th day of the first month, beyn ha arbayim. The Apostles, along with the 1st Century Church , understood this truth, allowing that Paul could confidently write: Jesus Christ our Passover (lamb implied), is sacrificed for us (I Corinthians 5:7).

How that reconciles with the issue of Christ/his disciples already having a Passover Meal prepared/ready to go is something to wrestle with, IMHO. There was an excellent review on the subject that does raise some interesting points, as seen here in Did Jesus eat the Passover meal? - Bibles, Wheels and Brains

On a side note, for any thinking Christ wouldn't have eaten the Passover Lamb as intended more so because they feel Christ would never have eaten the Passover meal since He was a the sacrifical lamb, I think they can often forget that CHrist had already lived for a long time (33 years, although others have considered longer). In the time he had grown up, he already had a background of celebration of the Passover Feast....for as mentioned before, his parents were devout in celebrating it alongside Him.

Luke 2:37
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43 After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

In all of the years he grew up celebrating the Jewish customs/celebrations, it would not make logical sense to say that He (as the ultimate Sacrifice) would not have ever eaten a Passover Lamb since the scriptures give no reason for such.....and even in the possibility that he didn't eat Passover Lamb on the night before His betrayal, there is already a precedent for His doing so.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

. If you read John as you directed in your previous post, John 15 says that his last supper was before the Passover.

John 15 mentions nothing about Christ in His last supper.

John 15
The Vine and the Branches

15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command.

15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit —fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

The World Hates the Disciples

18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’[b] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[c]

26 “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

Again, the entire passage is not focused on anything related to the Passover.

However, in John 13, it does mention how they ate a meal just before the Passover Feast:

John 13:1
It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.[a]


2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

​

Still amazing that Christ would choose to sacrifice Himself knowing ahead of time what would happen...

And in John 18 after his arrest, the next morning it says this: "Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled ; but that they might eat the passover. " Because of these discrepancies we can't say for sure if he did eat of the Passover lamb that Passover.

Valid points...


In regards to what you noted, what came to mind is that it's possible that when the disciples questioned Yeshua about where they were going to eat the Passover meal the next night in other accounts, their preparations were indeed done so that they could eat the Passover as they had done in previous years....but they did not fully understand that he would be dead then at that point. ...and rather than explaining to them then that he would be in the grave when the time came to eat the Passover lamb, he simply told his disciples where to prepare to eat the Passover meal. The scriptures often note that Christ told them plainly He'd die in Jerusalem for their sakes...but the meaning was hidden from them and they didn't fully understand ( Luke 9:44-46 /Luke 9 , Luke 18:33-35 /Luke 18, Matthew 16:19 )...and after Peter and John had deleavened the room and made ready for the upcoming feast, Yeshua used their final meal together on the night of the 14th to instruct his disciples one last time before his death.

Going back over the scriptures, I did notice some things. Specifically, in the "last supper" that took place on the same night Judas Iscariot betrayed Yeshua (John 13:21-30). The first verse plainly states that this was "before the feast of the Passover," which lasts for seven days (from Nisan 15 through Nisan 21). John seems to be referring to the same night described by the other three Gospel writers (Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22). John goes on to reiterate several times that these events took place before Passover....and John mentions at one point how the Passover meal traditionally eaten on the evening of Nisan 15 had not yet been observed:

John 13:21
​

When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray me. 26 . . . It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it." And having dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly." 28 But no one at the table knew for what reason he said this to him. 29 For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, "Buy those things we need for the Feast," or that he should give something to the poor. 30 Having received the piece of bread, he then went out immediately. And it was night. (NKJV)
​

John 19:14
14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, "Behold your King!" (NKJV)
​

John 19:31
Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. (NKJV)
​

John 19:42
42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews' Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby. (NKJV)
​

The Jews reckoned days from sunset to sunset...and John points out repeatedly that the "last supper," the betrayal by Judas, and Yeshua's trial and crucifixion all occurred before the Passover, on the Preparation Day. New Unger's Bible Dictionary says that the Preparation Day for the Passover was from the evening (end) of Nisan 13 until the evening (end) of Nisan 14 (p. 411). E.W. Bullinger, in Appendix 156 to The Companion Bible, states: "Wednesday, Nisan 14th (commencing on Tuesday at sunset), was 'the preparation day', on which the crucifixion took place" (p. 180)......

Timing can make a difference. For in regards to describing the disciples making preparations for the Passover Meal, Matthew 26:17 says it was "the first of Unleavened Bread." At first glance, this appears to contradict John's account, which plainly states that the "last supper" occurred before the Feast of Passover. However, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 thankfully add a helpful detail when stating the disciples preparations for Passover occurred on "the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover."

The Bible says in Exodus 12:6 that the Passover lambs were to be killed "between the evenings" on Nisan ...and that lines up with how the Jews have traditionally interpreted "between the evenings" to mean "in the afternoon." In The Wars of the Jews, Josephus records that in the 1st century, the Passover lambs were slaughtered "from the ninth hour till the eleventh" (Wars 6.9.3), which corresponds to our 3:00-5:00 p.m. Thus, one can logically deduce that what Matthew and Mark call the "first day of Unleavened Bread" is the same day that John calls the "the Preparation Day of the Passover"...and The New Unger's Bible Dictionary says that the 14th of Nisan was "called until the evening the preparation for the Passover"..all of that confirming how the Synoptic Gospels confirm that Yeshua was crucified on the "Preparation Day" (Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, etc).

And thus, it can make more sense as to what occurred with the Passover meal preparations. For Matthew and Mark show that the disciples came to Yeshua just as the Preparation Day (Nisan 14) was beginning, which would have been at sunset, asking him where he wanted them to prepare to eat the Passover meal, which would occur the next night (see John 18:28 )...and Matthew and Mark show that the disciples came to Yeshua just as the Preparation Day (Nisan 14) was beginning, which would have been at sunset.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Demand is what the pagan gods did, HaShem should not be compared to them. He gave Commandments, not 'Demandments'.
.

Pagan gods also used temples for worship alongside giving rules to their people on how to interact, just as the Lord did...but that doesn't logically mean that they're the same due to similarity at certain points. The same thing goes for the concept of demands vs commands, as it is indeed (IMHO) a very semantical point that is similar to how a mother asking "Would you mind cleaning your room today, son?" is not necessarily different than another mother saying "Clean up your room now" since asking in request form isn't necessarily a request with the option of saying "No Thank You". ...and the same when a police officer tells someone "Would you mind if I check out the trunk of your car?" or "May I see your license?" when they pull you over for an investigation and the person detained doesn't suppose the officer is really expecting to be told "No, sir...you cannot do as you asked." For the authority present is what determines how to view someone.

God has the right to demand worship--and He has done so many times.

Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Revelation 14:7)
​

The Lord has the authority and right to demand anything He wants, and further, who can stop Him? (Isaiah 43:13) God does grant freedom of choice as we have the choice to submit to His authority or refuse His demands. Before sin occurred on Earth, God’s laws (demands) were not in opposition to the way Adam and Eve lived, because their sinless hearts were in complete harmony with His demands. However, after sin occurred, God’s demands became hard to accept..and His laws are not only contrary to the way the world’s inhabitants live, but are also contrary to our rebellious nature. (Romans 8:7).

When the Lord asks for things, they are not requests. When he says he hates murder and will not tolerate it in the land when it occurs, that's quite a demand...and one I don't think people should have issue with. The same goes in regards to worship, as the Lord not only demands worship, but He has also given instructions about worship (Exodus 20:3-11; 2 Kings 17:15; Psalm 47:2; Malachi 1:14; Luke 4:8)..and He considers willful deviation from His instructions as rebellion. As the one who created us, He expects us to worship Him and does not take it lightly when others don't....just as parents don't take it lightly that kids they created choose to try/rule the house without submitting to their authority...or just as a spouse may not take it lightly when their spouse is flirting with others and they may demand that the affections of their mate be only for them. The Lord created us, and He is a God who will not be usurped:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Exodus 20:4-6 )
​

God's Jealously is nothing to play with ( Deuteronomy 32:20-22, Deuteronomy 6:14-16, Deuteronomy 5:8-10 , Exodus 34:13-15, Ezekiel 23 )....and when He makes a demand, He means it:

Genesis 9:5/Genesis 9:4-6
And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Deuteronomy 23:21
If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin.
Deuteronomy 23:20-22

Psalm 25:10
All the ways of the LORD are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of his covenant.
Psalm 25:9-11
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Demand is what the pagan gods did, HaShem should not be compared to them. He gave Commandments, not 'Demandments'.
.

Pagan gods also used temples for worship alongside giving rules to their people on how to interact, just as the Lord did...but that doesn't logically mean that they're the same due to similarity at certain points. The same thing goes for the concept of demands vs commands, as it is indeed (IMHO) a very semantical point that is similar to how a mother asking "Would you mind cleaning your room today, son?" is not necessarily different than another mother saying "Clean up your room now" since asking in request form isn't necessarily a request with the option of saying "No Thank You". ...and the same when a police officer tells someone "Would you mind if I check out the trunk of your car?" or "May I see your license?" when they pull you over for an investigation and the person detained doesn't suppose the officer is really expecting to be told "No, sir...you cannot do as you asked." For the authority present is what determines how to view someone.

God has the right to demand worship--and He has done so many times.

Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Revelation 14:7)
​

The Lord has the authority and right to demand anything He wants, and further, who can stop Him? (Isaiah 43:13) God does grant freedom of choice as we have the choice to submit to His authority or refuse His demands. Before sin occurred on Earth, God’s laws (demands) were not in opposition to the way Adam and Eve lived, because their sinless hearts were in complete harmony with His demands. However, after sin occurred, God’s demands became hard to accept..and His laws are not only contrary to the way the world’s inhabitants live, but are also contrary to our rebellious nature. (Romans 8:7).

When the Lord asks for things, they are not requests. When he says he hates murder and will not tolerate it in the land when it occurs, that's quite a demand...and one I don't think people should have issue with. The same goes in regards to worship, as the Lord not only demands worship, but He has also given instructions about worship (Exodus 20:3-11; 2 Kings 17:15; Psalm 47:2; Malachi 1:14; Luke 4:8)..and He considers willful deviation from His instructions as rebellion. As the one who created us, He expects us to worship Him and does not take it lightly when others don't....just as parents don't take it lightly that kids they created choose to try/rule the house without submitting to their authority...or just as a spouse may not take it lightly when their spouse is flirting with others and they may demand that the affections of their mate be only for them. The Lord created us, and He is a God who will not be usurped:

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Exodus 20:4-6 )
​

God's Jealously is nothing to play with ( Deuteronomy 32:20-22, Deuteronomy 6:14-16, Deuteronomy 5:8-10 , Exodus 34:13-15, Ezekiel 23 )....and when He makes a demand, He means it:

Genesis 9:5/Genesis 9:4-6
And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Deuteronomy 23:21
If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin.
Deuteronomy 23:20-22

Psalm 25:10
All the ways of the LORD are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of his covenant.
Psalm 25:9-11
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Passover Lamb in Egypt was not for atonement.

But it typified atonement in such that, Like the Passover Lamb (Egpyt) covered the death of the Hebrew's firstborn.

Seeing that even many of the Egyptians who saw the destruction of their land chose to put the blood on their doorposts and were sparred, the Passover Lamb concept had an atoning dynamic to it for anyone who'd come under the covering of the Lord and being sparred from the judgement of the Lord when the angel of death came.....symbolic of what Christ did in His own sacrifice and ensuring that all trusting in Him would not perish. The Passover Lamb was not for the purpose of removing sin, but the impact of protection from judgement was there....

Yeshua being the Passover Lamb of YAHWEH covered the death which was required for the punishment of sin.


Are not the ones who will be saved considered the firstborn of YAHWEH?


Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living Elohim, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to Yahweh the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,


Heb 12:24 And to Yahshua the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Just picture this scene in your mind for a minute, imagine how glorious this sight will be...Hallelujah!!!

The power found in the Blood/Sacrifice of Christ is so amazing...and I think that it can be limiting whenever it comes to focusing on one aspect of what His blood did. To claim His blood was only for atonement of sins would not be reflective of all that He noted and what the scriptures describe, but it'd be just as limiting to say His blood was solely for the inauguration of the New Covenant and opening the door for the coming of the Holy Spirit in a way that was not fully present before. There were mutiple things accomplished by the blood of Christ (more discussed in previous discussions such as here in #150 ,#157, #158 #166 ).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting about the book of Jasher, although I am not sure it correlates with the one mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel.

Who knows...

 

[Lulav]

Post #65 - It was the way you worded it, I've seen others make his being Jewish just like it was only a conduit to get here, not that he was Jewish because the Jews were promised a Messiah, no one else.

I don't see where logic factors in here, Yes, it was a commandment but if he wasn't there to eat it how could he? Perhaps his longing to eat it with them was because
he would rather celebrate Passover with them instead of being it? Don't forget his prayer in the garden.

Post #66 - Yes, I meant 13 where it opens with " Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. 2 And supper being ended"..................

Yes, some claim that there were different Passovers because the Pharisees, the Essenes and the Sadducee's all had a different calendar, but that wouldn't really make sense because the people came from all over and expected it to be one day. The Sadducess' controlled the Temple so thus the slaughter of the Passover lambs.

Just because they were in this place in the Essence quarter, does not mean that it was only for one night. It seems that they stayed there after wards and this was their base while in Jerusalem, as their homes were in the Galil.

Yes, it was commonplace to give money to the poor for Passover so that they too could keep the feast. If Judas was going out to get things for the feast it would be likely the fresh bitter herbs and bread. These would not be available to them as this was not their home, so they would have to be purchased.

Post #67 & 68 I'm not going to argue over semantics. In Job is the only place we see the word 'Demand' and that was speaking in the way we use the word today. Such as a child who has done something behind the parents back and they reply, I demand you tell me such and such. 'Or Else' is implied.

But enough of that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Post #67 & 68 I'm not going to argue over semantics. In Job is the only place we see the word 'Demand' \.

Disagre, as the word "Demand" is already present in Genesis 9:5-6 and Deuteronomy 23:21 as well as other places..both instances where the Lord demanded things/spoke in ways we use it today when making clear to others expecations we have and where we demand they do something. What's in the Word is in the Word...

Post #65 - It was the way you worded it, I've seen others make his being Jewish just like it was only a conduit to get here, not that he was Jewish because the Jews were promised a Messiah, no one else.

Understood on that. There was actually another thread elsewhere that focused on that specific issue of how others often assumed things from the Jewish heritage of Christ that were not present (as seen in the thread entitled Is God Jewish? ). Of course, the Lord could have chosen any other culture through whom the Messiah would be sent...and the Lord Himself made clear it was not because of anything special within Israel that He chose them. It was all for His Glory and the Promises He made to Abraham.

I don't see where logic factors in here, Yes, it was a commandment but if he wasn't there to eat it how could he? Perhaps his longing to eat it with them was because he would rather celebrate Passover with them instead of being it? Don't forget his prayer in the garden.

I definately think that there's something to be said of how the desire to eat the Passover (as commanded) doesn't necessarily equate to knowing he would be able to do so since he was aware that He'd die...and the fact that He noted how he was overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death in the Garden (Matthew 26:36-42 ) and John 12:26-28 shows where he was highly anxious but ready to die....it's more than reasonable to note that his eagerness to eat Passover was more so about longing.

Post #66 - Yes, I meant 13 where it opens with " Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. 2 And supper being ended"..................

Yes, some claim that there were different Passovers because the Pharisees, the Essenes and the Sadducee's all had a different calendar, but that wouldn't really make sense because the people came from all over and expected it to be one day. The Sadducess' controlled the Temple so thus the slaughter of the Passover lambs.

I would think there'd be something for others who came late to the Passover/were not able to make it but came later ( Numbers 9:10-12 / Numbers 9 ).

Just because they were in this place in the Essence quarter, does not mean that it was only for one night. It seems that they stayed there after wards and this was their base while in Jerusalem, as their homes were in the Galil. Yes, it was commonplace to give money to the poor for Passover so that they too could keep the feast. If Judas was going out to get things for the feast it would be likely the fresh bitter herbs and bread. These would not be available to them as this was not their home, so they would have to be purchased.

Indeed

 

[Zeek]

Hey Zazel, To say one has no mother or father eliminates any genealogy, but if this is Shem his genealogy goes all the way back to Adam. Even Yeshua had a mother and Father.

(PS, I think you meant Alef and Tav)

Lol...yes of course I meant Alef-Tav...tired.

I think you are arguing aginst yourself or misunderstanding me....I don't believe it is Shem for the very fact of his known geneology that you mention above. As I said before, it is possibly a direct member from Noah's children....but who it is we don't know..therefore we cannot attribute any of the written geneologies directly to him, although he might be recorded.

The point is that he like Yeshua is 'untraceable'...and the comparison to Melchizedeks untraceable geneology is compared, not to Jesus' physical geneology, but to His eternal presence...without beginning of end.

 

[Zeek]

If I may ask, what is your thought concerning Exodus 19:5-7 when the Lord (in an era where the Holy Spirit was not available at the same level He is for believers today) that he intended for Israel to be a NATION of KINGS/PRIESTS? Do you feel that what the Lord was not to be taken as saying he desired for all in Israel to be priests/kings due to how the Levites/sons of Aaron were given the priesthood and role of being stewards of the Tabernacle and Temple? Or are you of the mindset that the Lord gave designations of priesthood in the Mosaic Law to certain groups while simply not spelling out all of his long-term goals in setting up differing variations of priestly work ..as it concerns what occurred later with David and the Messiah as well as others in existence who were followers of the Lord and yet priests outside of the Aaronic priesthood?

Would love to hear your thoughts on whether or not you feel what was mentioned in Exodus 19:5-7 to Israel is connected to what the Lord also said in Isaiah 61:5-7 / Isaiah 61 ("you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God")--a text that has been applied to Gentiles as well as Jews when it came to the redeemption that would be found in Messiah. The same goes for what was shared in Exodus 19:5-7 when seeing how the same concept seemed to be extended to all of God's people later...in regards to Revelation 5:9-11 and Revelation 20:6 when John spoke of the future/declared "Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

Hi EG...Apols about the delay...sometimes I have severe time constraints, but I will always get back and reply eventually.

I was going to break your question down, but having read it through a few times I think I give an all-encompassing reply. Please bear with me in my pre-amble which is purely to show how I chew things over, and might prove helpful.

There are several things I always bear in mind when looking at Scripture, especially when it comes to establishing facts by stripping away prior mis-conceptions and improper word usuage and transmogrifying contexts into pretexts.

For example...within your question is the expression 'Kings/Priests' in ref. to Ex 19:6...which actually skips ahead to incorporate a ref in Rev 5:10. Most modern readings will render both passages 'a kingdom of Priests'...so if you can see what I am getting at...even in the question is the 'drifting away' from what is actually recorded...at least within your references.
Ultimately there is a significant difference between being 'Priests and Kings' compared to being a 'Kingdom of Priests'.

In today's mindset, many people have a rather 'catholic' idea of what constitutes the office of a Priest, but in its purest form it should not really have religious trappings or connotations as it has a designate that is based on 'relationship' not 'duties'...at least that is how I see it.

So in answer to your question, G-ds chosen people were always meant to be a Kingdom of Priests...not that they all had religious functions, but that all of them across the board knew their G-d. In knowing YHWH they were a Holy nation and were meant to be a light to the Nations...every Israelite should have been able to act as a Priest to any Gentile and introduce them to YHWH. So both the nation and each individual were a light to the Gentiles.

The difficulties arose from the 'sins in the hearts of the people' and thus the Law of Moses was established, but the 'prime objective' of producing a nation of Priests was still operating...the constricting nature of the Law now becoming a vital neccessity, and within which frame-work G-d was continuing to present His 'vision' to His people...if only they would take Him up on it.

Today in the dispensation of the Spirit nothing has really changed...the vision and the goal is still the same...all Believers, Jew and Gentile should act in the function of Priests because they know G-d..and we can petition the L-rd on behalf of those that don't know Him, and stand together in support of those that do.

What exactly transpires during the 1,000 year reign and how Temple worship and the function of Priests operates together with sacrifices is only something I can guess at...I have read Ezekiel over and over and my own idea (which is fairly nebulous) is that now we will see the beauty of the Law enacted to perfection under the guidence of a Righteous Priest and King....with some adaptation, but the purpose will be prophetic and to give the nation the opportunity to express what they should have expressed back in the time of David/Solomon.

Hopefully within this you can glean my reply...the Scripture refs. you gave all constitute 'nation of Priests' as far as I can see, and I have treated them as such. Kind regards. Zazal

 

[Lulav]

Lol...yes of course I meant Alef-Tav...tired.

I think you are arguing aginst yourself or misunderstanding me....I don't believe it is Shem for the very fact of his known geneology that you mention above. As I said before, it is possibly a direct member from Noah's children....but who it is we don't know..therefore we cannot attribute any of the written geneologies directly to him, although he might be recorded.

The point is that he like Yeshua is 'untraceable'...and the comparison to Melchizedeks untraceable geneology is compared, not to Jesus' physical geneology, but to His eternal presence...without beginning of end.

I never argue against myself, talk to myself sometimes, and usually get intelligent answers.............

But let's break this down what you're saying:

• You don't believe it is Shem for the very fact of his known genealogy

Shem has a genealogy, sure, but it is only one persons understanding that he is not Melkitzedek only because his given name is not mentioned, only his title.

• but who it is we don't know..therefore we cannot attribute any of the written genealogies directly to him

Nor can you make any assumptions that he doesn't have a genealogy. By saying this you are making him into an angel and not a person. Many kings are mentioned in that passage and not one of them have a genealogy mentioned, does that make them too inhuman?

• Yeshua is untraceable

Quite the contrary, read Matthew chapter 1 verses 1 thru 17, He is traced back to Abraham and Luke's goes back to Adam, you can't have any more of a genealogy than that. If he were, as you say, 'untraceable' he would not, could not, be the Messiah. Tracing him back to David is tantamount to being Messiah. He absolutely has to be traceable.

• and the comparison to Melchizedek untraceable genealogy is compared, not to Jesus' physical genealogy, but to His eternal presence...without beginning of end

When Moses left Egypt he came upon a woman in the desert who was watering her sheep. She took him home to her father. There is no mention of her mother, but she has many sisters. In Exodus 2 we read that her father name is Reuel, but next in chapter 3 we read his name is Jethro. So which is it? There are many named more than one name in the Bible and the writer of Hebrews did not take that into consideration.



Something else to consider that you won't find written in Genesis, but Shem was alive at that time. This can be determined by the genealogy's given in Genesis, but you must lay them out to see it yourself, it doesn't tell you that anywhere.


If the comparison is not to physical but spiritual why mention genealogies?


Yeshua defiantly had a mother and a father.

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zazal
I think you are arguing aginst yourself or misunderstanding me....I don't believe it is Shem for the very fact of his known geneology that you mention above. As I said before, it is possibly a direct member from Noah's children....but who it is we don't know..therefore we cannot attribute any of the written geneologies directly to him, although he might be recorded.

The point is that he like Yeshua is 'untraceable'...and the comparison to Melchizedeks untraceable geneology is compared, not to Jesus' physical geneology, but to His eternal presence...without beginning of end.

Lulav...
But let's break this down what you're saying:


You don't believe it is Shem for the very fact of his known genealogy

Shem has a genealogy, sure, but it is only one persons understanding that he is not Melkitzedek only because his given name is not mentioned, only his title.

Hebrews makes it clear the geneology of Melchizedek is unknown.

Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

If Shem was Melchizedek ...and many Haredim will say he was; it would mean what was written in Hebrews was incorrect.

• • but who it is we don't know..therefore we cannot attribute any of the written genealogies directly to him.

  Nor can you make any assumptions that he doesn't have a genealogy. By saying this you are making him into an angel and not a person. Many kings are mentioned in that passage and not one of them have a genealogy mentioned, does that make them too inhuman?

Sorry, but you are totally missing the point...there is no record of his parentage, no geneology...it is as if, he, like Jesus, has no beginning and no end.

• • Yeshua is untraceable

  Quite the contrary, read Matthew chapter 1 verses 1 thru 17, He is traced back to Abraham and Luke's goes back to Adam, you can't have any more of a genealogy than that. If he were, as you say, 'untraceable' he would not, could not, be the Messiah. Tracing him back to David is tantamount to being Messiah. He absolutely has to be traceable.

Now you are mis-quoting what I was emphasizing by taking it out of context...I did actually qualify what I meant...if you look.

• • and the comparison to Melchizedek's untraceable genealogy is compared, not to Jesus' physical genealogy, but to His eternal presence...without beginning of end

  When Moses left Egypt he came upon a woman in the desert who was watering her sheep. She took him home to her father. There is no mention of her mother, but she has many sisters. In Exodus 2 we read that her father name is Reuel, but next in chapter 3 we read his name is Jethro. So which is it? There are many named more than one name in the Bible and the writer of Hebrews did not take that into consideration.

I cannot grasp what you are trying to explain...are you suggesting the writer of Hebrews didn't know what he was talking about?

Something else to consider that you won't find written in Genesis, but Shem was alive at that time. This can be determined by the genealogy's given in Genesis, but you must lay them out to see it yourself, it doesn't tell you that anywhere.

I think most people have done the maths...me included.

If the comparison is not to physical but spiritual why mention genealogies?

I give in...you tell me?

Yeshua defiantly had a mother and a father.

Yep, that's what my Bible says too.

(Ps...this is a friendly post, with a mixture of humour and bewilderment )

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hi EG...Apols about the delay...sometimes I have severe time constraints, but I will always get back and reply eventually.

Wasn't tripping at all, Bruh, about any delay. Life happens...

I was going to break your question down, but having read it through a few times I think I give an all-encompassing reply. Please bear with me in my pre-amble which is purely to show how I chew things over, and might prove helpful.

There are several things I always bear in mind when looking at Scripture, especially when it comes to establishing facts by stripping away prior mis-conceptions and improper word usuage and transmogrifying contexts into pretexts.


For example...within your question is the expression 'Kings/Priests' in ref. to Ex 19:6...which actually skips ahead to incorporate a ref in Rev 5:10. Most modern readings will render both passages 'a kingdom of Priests'...so if you can see what I am getting at...even in the question is the 'drifting away' from what is actually recorded...at least within your references.

IMHO, I think one would perhaps read more into the passage issue than what was present...as I read what most modern readings note and "a kingdom of priests" is what was in view. As I noted earlier the same thing, however, part of me was curious as to how there was focus on "kings/priests" as if that was what was in view for the entirety. But I get where you're coming from..

Ultimately there is a significant difference between being 'Priests and Kings' compared to being a 'Kingdom of Priests'.

More than agree...

In today's mindset, many people have a rather 'catholic' idea of what constitutes the office of a Priest, but in its purest form it should not really have religious trappings or connotations as it has a designate that is based on 'relationship' not 'duties'...at least that is how I see it.


So in answer to your question, G-ds chosen people were always meant to be a Kingdom of Priests...not that they all had religious functions, but that all of them across the board knew their G-d. In knowing YHWH they were a Holy nation and were meant to be a light to the Nations...every Israelite should have been able to act as a Priest to any Gentile and introduce them to YHWH. So both the nation and each individual were a light to the Gentiles.

I would think that even the concept of "Kingdom of Priests" still carries the connotation of all within being akin to priests/living out that religious function..

The difficulties arose from the 'sins in the hearts of the people' and thus the Law of Moses was established, but the 'prime objective' of producing a nation of Priests was still operating...the constricting nature of the Law now becoming a vital neccessity, and within which frame-work G-d was continuing to present His 'vision' to His people...if only they would take Him up on it.


Today in the dispensation of the Spirit nothing has really changed...the vision and the goal is still the same...all Believers, Jew and Gentile should act in the function of Priests because they know G-d..and we can petition the L-rd on behalf of those that don't know Him, and stand together in support of those that do.

What exactly transpires during the 1,000 year reign and how Temple worship and the function of Priests operates together with sacrifices is only something I can guess at...I have read Ezekiel over and over and my own idea (which is fairly nebulous) is that now we will see the beauty of the Law enacted to perfection under the guidence of a Righteous Priest and King....with some adaptation, but the purpose will be prophetic and to give the nation the opportunity to express what they should have expressed back in the time of David/Solomon.

Hopefully within this you can glean my reply...the Scripture refs. you gave all constitute 'nation of Priests' as far as I can see, and I have treated them as such. Kind regards. Zazal

More than understand and I think you brought up alot of excellent points, as it concerns the Priestly function believers have when it comes to lifting others up--although I'd think in Christ what believers have is even greater than what believers had in the OT when it came to others intercedding for one another...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

How does one commune with the Lord?