Passover week & unleavened bread used in Lord's Supper

Big words relating to interpreting the Bible and the study of *how* we determine what God wants us to do.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Passover week & unleavened bread used in Lord's Supper

Post by email » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:19 pm

I read your article...very interesting.

I only have one comment...at the end of the article you state that the bread eaten by Yeshua at the Lord's Supper was "unleavened" bread.

If you would please refer to the Greek in the translations, you will find that this is incorrect.

The word used in all references to the "bread" broken is "artos"
G740
ἄρτος
artos
ar'-tos

From G142; bread (as raised) or a loaf: - (shew-) bread, loaf.

The unleavened concept simply does not agree with scripture.

Just wanted to pass that on.

Blessings.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:04 pm

Thanks for the comment. May I explain my statement that Jesus broke unleavened bread?

First, yes, you are correct that the original Greek word, artos, is a generic word for bread and even food. It does not necessarily connote the idea of unleavened or even leavened bread. It's just food!
  • Thayer's (767) - 1. food composed of flour mixed with water and baked; the Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one's thumb, and as large as a plate or platter; hence, it was not cut, but broken ... 2. As in Greek writings, and like the Hebrew ~x,l,, food of any kind: ...
  • Friberg (3685) - (1) bread, loaf of bread (MT 4.3); (2) by metonymy food, nourishment (LU 15.17)
  • Louw-Nida (5.8) - a relatively small and generally round loaf of bread (considerably smaller than present-day typical loaves of bread and thus more like 'rolls' or 'buns') ...
  • Barclay Newman (888) - bread, a loaf; food
  • Gingrich (939) - bread, loaf (of bread) (Mt 26:26; Mk 6:38, 44, 52; Lk 9:3; Hb 9:2). Food in general (Mk 3:20; Lk 15:17; 2 Th 3:8, 12).
As with any generic attribute of any word, we must look to the context to determine its specific usage.

Second, my statement that Jesus broke unleavened bread was not based on the meaning of the word bread. It was based on the fact that Jesus was a good Jew:
" 'So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat -- that only may be prepared by you. So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' " (Exodus 12:14-20; see also Exodus 13:3-10; 34:18; Numbers 28:16-18)

"... You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:1-4)
Please note that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper during the passover week, during the days of unleavened bread!
Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?" And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples." ' " So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. Now as they were eating, He said, ... And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you." (Matthew 26:17-27; see also Luke 22:1, 7-15, 17, 19, 20)
Therefore, as One who recognized and obeyed the law in all points (Hebrews 4:15; 9:14; I Peter 1:19), how could a sinless Jesus have violated the very clear command to not even bring leaven into "your territory", much less "bring it into your house" or "eat leavened bread", by directing his disciples to take leavened bread into the house? Even worse, He took it, blessed it, and commanded them to eat! Did Jesus not know the law? Did He not know the bread was leavened? Would Jesus have sinned by eating leavened bread on the Passover and commanding His disciples to do the same? Unless we are willing to accept that Jesus sinned or was otherwise imperfect, we must acknowledge that the bread Jesus broke was indeed unleavened.

(Incidentally, this same argument eliminates our modern wine from being used in the Lord's Supper, because it also contains yeast.)

The only question remaining is, "Are we obligated to partake the Lord's Supper as Jesus instituted?" And, I think He answered that for us:
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19)
I look forward hearing from you soon.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:49 pm

Thanks so much for the reply. My responses are in blue....
Thanks for the comment. May I explain my statement that Jesus broke unleavened bread?

First, yes, you are correct that the original Greek word, artos, is a generic word for bread and even food. It does not necessarily connote the idea of unleavened or even leavened bread. It's just food!
You state that rather boldly :)
  • Thayer's (767) - 1. food composed of flour mixed with water and baked; the Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one's thumb, and as large as a plate or platter; hence, it was not cut, but broken ... 2. As in Greek writings, and like the Hebrew ~x,l,, food of any kind: ...
  • Friberg (3685) - (1) bread, loaf of bread (MT 4.3); (2) by metonymy food, nourishment (LU 15.17)
  • Louw-Nida (5.8) - a relatively small and generally round loaf of bread (considerably smaller than present-day typical loaves of bread and thus more like 'rolls' or 'buns') ...
  • Barclay Newman (888) - bread, a loaf; food
  • Gingrich (939) - bread, loaf (of bread) (Mt 26:26; Mk 6:38, 44, 52; Lk 9:3; Hb 9:2). Food in general (Mk 3:20; Lk 15:17; 2 Th 3:8, 12).
Yet, with all of the concordance definitions you place here it seems plain to me that "artos" is in fact "bread", and a loaf of bread, no less.

As with any generic attribute of any word, we must look to the context to determine its specific usage.
I wholeheartedly agree with study to be of the context to determine usage. So what you're saying here is that he broke "food" and that we should consider his body as "food" rather than the "bread" (or mana) that Jesus proclaimed himself to be in passages of John and elsewhere. Actually "broma", the word translated as "meat" would more often be used to simply represent "food" or "victals"
Second, my statement that Jesus broke unleavened bread was not based on the meaning of the word bread. It was based on the fact that Jesus was a good Jew:

" 'So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat -- that only may be prepared by you. So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native of the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread.' " (Exodus 12:14-20; see also Exodus 13:3-10; 34:18; Numbers 28:16-18)

"... You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, that is, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), that you may remember the day in which you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life. And no leaven shall be seen among you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the meat which you sacrifice the first day at twilight remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:1-4)
I agree and I fully observe all of God's Holy Days...
Please note that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper during the passover week, during the days of unleavened bread!
Here is where we must emphatically agree to disagree...there is no possible way that Yeshua instituted the Lord's Supper "during" the Passover, as he was, and I believe you have noted in your article, the "Passover Lamb"...what would have been breaking the Torah of the feast would have been to observe the Passover on any day other than what was appointed (ie. the day of His death). Therefore, the week of Unleavened Bread wouldn't have begun until the day following His death.
Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?" And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples." ' " So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. Now as they were eating, He said, ... And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you." (Matthew 26:17-27; see also Luke 22:1, 7-15, 17, 19, 20)
Under the pretense of the verse you quote, wouldn't have the day of Passover already passed had it actually been the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

They indeed "prepared" for the Passover, as it would have been the Preparation Day (or day before Passover) the Feast wouldn't have even started at this time, there was a very likely possibility that they would actually eat up any remaining leavened bread (artos) on this day. The scripture as noted in the Strong's reads as follow:



Note the meaning of the word "first" (protos) can actually mean "before"...and that they were only "preparing" to eat.

Therefore, as One who recognized and obeyed the law in all points (Hebrews 4:15; 9:14; I Peter 1:19), how could a sinless Jesus have violated the very clear command to not even bring leaven into "your territory", much less "bring it into your house" or "eat leavened bread", by directing his disciples to take leavened bread into the house? Even worse, He took it, blessed it, and commanded them to eat! Did Jesus not know the law? Did He not know the bread was leavened? Would Jesus have sinned by eating leavened bread on the Passover and commanding His disciples to do the same? Unless we are willing to accept that Jesus sinned or was otherwise imperfect, we must acknowledge that the bread Jesus broke was indeed unleavened.
If we are to investigate the feast day cycle and realize that Jesus was indeed and fully the "Passover Lamb", then we are to only assume that the day of Passover was the day he died, and that the week of Unleavened Bread didn't transpire until the day after of His death... this would align perfectly will all of the gospels and also make certain that Jesus broke no Torah laws.
(Incidentally, this same argument eliminates our modern wine from being used in the Lord's Supper, because it also contains yeast.)
I agree, according to my studies, most "wine" referred to in scripture was actually grape juice, therefore that wasn't an issue. Actually the scripture doesn't say in any verse that it was wine at all, just that it was a cup (even though some versions render this "cup of wine"). And if you'll search out also, that the words used to define the "fruit" of the vine was "gennema" (fruit, generation) NOT the normally rendered word "harpazo" or "karpos" as used in most other verses....one could even conclude that there could have been any number of types of "drink" used. You'll actually find this word used only a handful of times in the gospels:

G1081

gennema
Total KJV Occurrences: 9
generation, 4
Mat_3:7, Mat_12:34, Mat_23:33, Luk_3:7
fruit, 3
Mat_26:29, Mar_14:25, Luk_22:18
fruits, 2
Luk_12:18 (2), 2Co_9:10

The only question remaining is, "Are we obligated to partake the Lord's Supper as Jesus instituted?" And, I think He answered that for us:

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19)
I fully agree that we should be participating in this practice "as often as we do this"...(which could actually be as often as we eat or intend to judge ourselves worthy or not, not simply a communion performed once a year or even just once a month. Again, here you notice he "broke it" ("klao" - break) the bread. I would find it difficult to "break" any other kind of "food"
I look forward hearing from you soon.
I loved your article, I feel this interpretation needed to be presented :) Thanks for the opportunity!

Read, Pray, study it out, and please do tell me what you think?

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,
Agreed!
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:03 pm

Thanks for the well articulated response!

We should boil the discussion down to one central question, but I should first clarify and dispense with an easier question.

Regarding my observations on artos, you are unfairly stretching my meaning. I am clearly not arguing that the term should be treated as generically as possible. (As if I was arguing that any food could be used.) Rather, you seem to be taking a generic word for bread, artos, and demanding that it always includes leavened bread. You are the one taking a generic word and ignoring the context to bring in as broad a meaning as possible.

Beyond all dispute, we know nothing about the bread Jesus broke in instituting the Lord's supper by the usage of artos alone, except that it was some kind of bread. Yes, occasionally, the word is used by metonymy for food in general (Luke 15:17, see lexicon definitions again). However, we do know that it was bread, not food in general, and we also know it was "broken", based on the immediate context, which is supported by the lexicons. Likewise, whether it was leavened or unleavened must also be shown from the context. The definition alone tells us nothing, because it is ambiguous with regards to leaven!

The observation that the Lord's bread was broken is in no way telling as you suggested. Every Sunday (as did early Christians, Acts 20:7), I and the entire church of which I am a member, break unleavened bread in shared observation of the Lord's Supper. Therefore, the stiffness and breaking of the bread is in no way an indication that leaven is present. Consequently, the bread that Jesus broke could just have easily been unleavened bread too!

...

Now, let us deal with the thrust of your argument: If I understand you correctly, you are convinced that Jesus did not institute the Lord's Supper on Passover, because you believe He died the next day, which was Passover. If that is true, and you propose that it is, there would have been no restriction, and the Lord's Supper could have potentially included leavened bread. Is this not your proposition?

If I have restated your argument fairly, then I ask these simple questions:
  1. Approximately, what time of day did Jesus eat the Lord's Supper?
  2. Approximately, how much time elapsed between this supper and Jesus' death?
In other words, at what approximate times on what days of the week did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper and die? I want to make sure that I did not overlook some unstated assumption in your proposed timeline, which I have not followed.

Furthermore, under whose method for accounting time would the Passover have been regulated, and do we have any Scripture to define that accounting system?

Lastly, examining this passage again:
Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?" And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples." ' " So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. Now as they were eating, He said, ... And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you." (Matthew 26:17-27)
Jesus said that He would eat the Passover with his disciples in this certain man's house. Did He not do it? Jesus gave the apostles instructions in preparation to eat the Passover. They prepared it. Did they not eat it? Based on the context, what else could they have been eating beside the Passover meal?

I look forward to your response.

May God help us to have a sincere love of the truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:07 pm

I have attached a graphic to help illustrate my belief... please review and comment.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:40 pm

Thanks for the chart. It has a lot of information that we should cover. Obviously, there are a lot of points and passages to review. Rather than introducing additional points of disagreement, how about we focus on the one passage and point in time that was already introduced: Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper on Passover on the evening before the day He died. If we cannot agree here, where the text is very clear, in my humble opinion, I do not see how we will come to unity on other times calculated from this point.

I look forward to hearing your updated explanation of Matthew 26:17-27:
Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?" And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples." ' " So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. Now as they were eating, He said, ... And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you." (Matthew 26:17-27)
Jesus said that He would eat the Passover with his disciples in this certain man's house. Did He not do it? Jesus gave the apostles instructions in preparation to eat the Passover. They prepared it. Did they not eat it? Based on the context, what else could they have been eating beside the Passover meal?
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

will
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:47 pm

Lord's Supper: It's a Sabbatarian Appproach

Post by will » Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:34 am

I believe this is a discussion with a Sabbatarian. I think he will eventually attempt to switch the argument / discussion to the Sabbath Day and a Passover Observance (i.e., Annual) of the Lord's Supper.The discussion on the elements is 'bait'. If it is of any use, I would begin with Curtis Porter's debate with the Sabbbatarian (Seventh Day Adventists).

Looks like 'cult' stuff for sure focused on Keeping the old law Sabbath as binding today. The chart looks like Seventh Day stuff or a variant on it - maybe, JW?
Be careful in comparing times between Gospel accounts - Mark seems to have made use of Roman time - midnight to midnight. The example of Acts 20: is definitely figured to a definition of a first day consistent w/ midnight to midnight reckoning of time.
In Him for truth.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Sat Jan 16, 2010 6:34 pm

Hello again Brother!

I'm sorry m273p15c, but the simple fact that "the Passover Lamb" cannot eat of itself is enough to end any progressing debate.

Even though I have no "locked in" belief of Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion just yet (as both bear equal weight), I felt the chart was enough to show that one cannot be the required sacrifice and still participate in the meal, if Yeshua is to actually fulfill prophecy. If you're aiming for a Friday-Sunday passion, you will be unable to sway me.

First off, no respectable Jews would have waited until the last minute to prepare for a Passover feast as you claim Matthew 26:17-27 states. Let alone the fact that if (as the context implies) it was actually the "first day of Feast of Unleavened Bread", then the Passover lamb would have already been killed and the the meal was likely missed all together! Even Matthew 26:2 states "after two days is the Passover..." A little deeper dig into the Greek (preferably Aramaic texts) and you may find the scriptural errors you're struggling with and the true harmony of the gospel texts. Be certain for yourself that all of the English text shown is actually present in the original manuscripts.

If you recall, Judas ran off that night and took the money bag with him...did not the disciples believe he may have gone out to buy something for the feast? Since it was dark (v. 13:30) then it was already the Sabbath...Buy something on the Sabbath? I don't think so...and neither would the disciples have had such a thought...
Joh 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Joh 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
Joh 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Joh 13:28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
Joh 13:29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
Joh 13:30 He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
Joh 13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
If I had more time available presently, I would get into this a lot deeper, but I don't. Perhaps another time...

Thanks for the friendly dialogue, m273p15c.

Blessings.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:56 pm

I think you are "mixing your metaphors". What have I said that requires Jesus to eat of His own body? Why could He not eat of the OT Passover feast and have been crucified later the same day, while it was still Passover day? Why does Jesus fulfillment of being a spiritual "Passover lamb" prohibit Him from eating a physical "Passover lamb"? I cannot even begin to see a conflict here.

You have yet to explain Matthew 26:17-27 by addressing the questions I raised: Jesus said that He would eat the Passover with his disciples in this certain man's house. Did He not do it? Did Jesus lie, or was He ignorant of His pending death? Jesus gave the apostles instructions in preparation to eat the Passover. They prepared it. Did they not eat it?

You did raise a few exceptions, which were troubling to you, so I would like to address them:
  1. Yes, Matthew 26:2 states that the Passover was in two days. Now, what ties Matthew 26:2 to being the same day as Matthew 26:17? There seems to be a clear gap with several events described. Clearly time has passed, possibly days, between Matthew 26:2 and 26:17. What do you see that requires Matthew 26:17 to have occurred the same day as Matthew 26:1-2?
  2. About your "first day of Unleavened Bread" comment, I think you may be right. Your earliest explanation that this occurred before the Feast of Unleavened Bread is very fitting, so I will apply your early explanation here. I could also tie in Passover as being the beginning of "Unleavened Bread", which is what the text says (Mark 14:12; Luke 17:). Either answer would suffice to eliminate any concern on this point.
  3. Who said that Jesus died on the Sabbath, or that this feast occurred on the early morning (Jewish evening) of the Sabbath? Therefore, the disciples could have reasonably thought Judas was sent to buy bread. Clearly, it was not something they gave a lot of thought; otherwise, they would have thought something else...
  4. About the elaborate preparation that you have suggested, please recall that we are dealing with a Man, Whose disciples pulled His taxes out of fish' mouths (Matthew 17:24-27), Who fed thousands with a few loaves and fish (Matthew 14:13-21; 15:32-39), and Who arranged transportation (Matthew 21:1-3) and eating places for the Passover without the owners advanced notice (Matthew 26:17-19). Furthermore, the Passover feast was originally supposed to be very simple, representative of haste (roasted lamb, herbs, unleavened bread, etc. - Exodus 12:8-11) Any elaboration would have been added as tradition, which Jesus had already dismissed as authoritative (Matthew 15:1-20).
I see no difficulty here. Certainly nothing remotely sufficient to overturn the clear wording of the text. I hope you can come to accept what the Scriptures plainly say in Matthew 26:1-2, 17-27; Mark 14:1-2, 12-25; Luke 22:1-2, 7-20; John 13:1-ff. Here I have included Mark's and Luke's account, because they further affirm that Jesus ate Passover with His disciples, and that the feast was much prepared before the apostles arrived:
After two days it was the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take Him by trickery and put Him to death. But they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar of the people." ... Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover?" And He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. "Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?" ' "Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us." So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover. In the evening He came with the twelve. Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, ... (Mark 14:1-2, 12-22)

Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people. ... Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat." So they said to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare?" And He said to them, "Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters. "Then you shall say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?" ' "Then he will show you a large, furnished upper room; there make ready." 13 So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; ..." (Luke 22:1-2, 7-20)
Did Jesus not know what day it was? Did the inspired writers of these 3 gospel accounts not know what day it was?

My friend, I do not know the cause for your bias. Despite my best efforts, I do not see it. I have studied this issue, and I guess I do not have your theological framework requiring me to enforce a specific interpretation. As far as I can tell, all four gospel accounts teach that Jesus ate the Passover meal and instituted the Lord's Supper at its close. The text, context, and prophecies seem very clear to me.

I understand your time constraints. Whenever you find time to explain Matthew 26:17-27 and your beliefs more clearly from the Scriptures, please let me know. If not, I pray you open your heart to the Word.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:55 am

m273p15c,

Nice to see that you included the Book of John...

John 13:1 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.

John makes it very clear indeed. Until I have time to get into the "meat" vs. the "milk" of this, I'll give you a couple of verses to reconcile...

John 18:28 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.

Hmm, the Jews hadn't eaten the passover yet, and Yeshua was already in the hands of Pilate?

John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

Odd, didn't Matthew say that it was already the First Day of Unleavened Bread? In this verse he's nearly ready to be crucified!

John was the only disciple that was present at the crucifixion, was he not? I will take his story over the others to begin harmonizing, so now we can reconcile the other gospels, if you'd like, later...

Peace.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:19 pm

Please, I would like to see your harmony or explanation of the other accounts, since that is what I have been asking for several emails now. ... Did I read you right? You doubt the credibility or accuracy of Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's accounts? If not, why the preference for John's account again?
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:01 pm

Relax m273p15c, I'm getting to that, it's going to obviously take an essay to convince you that your belief it was a passover meal is incorrect. It will take me some time to compile the data for you. Time which I have not had, but will cover soon.

I don't doubt the other gospels credibility at all, however as John was the only disciple mentioned at the crucifixion (as I stated before) it just shows that there are discrepancies in the texts that need to be studied, that's all. Are you having a problem with John's account of the days as I pointed out in the last email?

But I do question the credibility of having "two lambs" (spiritual/physical) sacrificed, as this concept is entirely non-scriptural.

Besides there is no mention in any of the accounts of lamb or matza being eaten at the meal and wine is not a required item in a passover.

Patience friend, I will get back to this matter in a few days.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:21 pm

No problem. It seemed that you were cutting off communication, especially given that you were asking a lot of questions and answering few, referring to lack of time, references to mind being made up, etc. If you are willing to compile the data, I certainly do not mind waiting to analyze it. :)

About the two lambs, please include a fuller explanation as to why a physical Passover lamb was required in addition to Jesus' sacrifice. Furthermore, although it certainly is interesting and makes for good preaching that Jesus was crucified on Passover, I know of no reason why that date was required - prophetically or doctrinally. You are hitting on something without providing enough elaboration for me to understand or ask good questions, but it is clear to me you have some requirement working in your mind that is completely foreign to me - at least with the amount of info provided.

Other than that, I am not looking for an essay. I am just looking for an explanation as to why Jesus did not institute the Lord's Supper after partaking in, what was in His mind, the Passover feast, according to Matthew's, Mark's, and Luke's accounts. After you answer that, I'll gladly answer John's account and your other new questions. :)

Incidentally, I am aware of some of these arguments, especially as they relate to Sabbatarians and critics of the Bible's inspiration, but I am deliberately focusing on one point, so the discussion goes somewhere instead of everywhere, leading nowhere. No essay is needed...

Thanks!

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:51 pm

m273p15c,

We're going to take this one step at a time, and work our way through this for a time and perhaps half a time after that, but I won't spend hours on debate of an issue that may never be rectified. In other words, we may simply have to agree to disagree.

Mat 26:17 Now was the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? KJV

There is a contradiction here since the Passover can not be prepared once the feast of unleavened bread has begun. Rather it is prepared the day "before". This is one of the two possible meanings of the Aramaic qadmaya, and even the Greek word protos (G4413) which is translated here by the KJV as "first" and obviously the correct one should be "before".

G4413

protos
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.

This sets up the error below in verse 19.

Mat 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

The word "keep" is loosly translated here as well...
G4160

poieo
Thayer Definition:
1) to make
1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
1b) to be the authors of, the cause
1c) to make ready, to prepare

1d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
1f) to make a thing out of something

1g) to (make, i.e.) render one anything
1g1) to (make, i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
1g2) to (make, i.e.) declare one anything
1h) to put one forth, to lead him out
1i) to make one do something
1i1) cause one to
1j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
2) to do
2a) to act rightly, do well
2a1) to carry out, to execute
2b) to do a thing unto one
2b1) to do to one
2c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
2d) to celebrate, keep
2d1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
2e) to perform: to a promise
(Don't get me wrong, to celebrate and keep are here too, but much further down the list as you can see)

Mat 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. KJV

The problem here is that in the context it makes no sense that they prepared the Passover to be eaten that night, and then not follow any of the regulations concerning it (as you noted in your own article Jesus was a Jew to the nth degree) Besides, the narratives in all the gospels tell us that the Passover was not even to be killed until the next afternoon (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7), Another problem is that the word translated as "Then" in Luke is the following:

G1161

de
deh
A primary particle (adversative or continuative); but, and, etc.: - also, and, but, moreover, now [often unexpressed in English].
Therefore not a good translation to the English...better would be read as moreover, or even and now...

The previous verses leading up to this one all speak of finding a place and preparing it for the upcoming feast.

What is not realized here by most is that the Hebrew word Pesach or the Aramaic Petzcha, has two meanings which share a common root. This is known as polysemy. The literal meaning of the word is "to skip over", or "to hop". This came to refer to how the angel of death would skip over the Israelite houses with the blood on the door posts on Passover night.

If you were to trace the movement of a frog hopping you would display a series of arches. And so this term came to refer to an arched room., as opposed to one supported by walls. The advantage of this design, often used of upper rooms, was to eliminate middle supporting walls in order to accommodate a greater number of people and reduce weight. Such a room would be in demand for festivals and parties. Such rooms were ideal banquet halls.

So the disciples were not preparing the Passover meal, but rather they were securing and preparing the room which they were going to occupy during the feast, which began the next day. This kind of word play is found throughout the Aramaic text, but not readily apparent in translations.

"And the disciples did just as Yeshua had instructed them, and they prepared an arched room" - Peshitta

m273p15c, you seem to speak as though the First Day of Unleavened Bread is when they kill the lamb? Is this a correct assumption on my part? They kill the lamb on the Passover (14th Aviv) and eat it that evening (15th Aviv) standing, ready to go...as they did in the Exodus. They are not killed and eaten on the same day.

The verses in John I sent you yesterday confirm what I state here. I have also attached some information for you regarding the "artos" bread we spoke of when this all started...you may find it interesting. And not only that but if you go back to verse 26:17, you'll see they use the world azumos (G106). If they wanted to show that Yeshua used unleavened bread all they had to do was use the same word in verse 26:26 instead of artos, one must question why they didn't? Don't you think? The Aramaic text in the Peshitta confirms this.

This is all I have for now...let me know where this is getting us so far...

Oh, and about the whole "two lamb" thing...?? You were the one that first brought up the notion that they could have killed and eaten one physically, then Yeshua could have died to represent one spiritually later that same day. It was I that was questioning your reasoning on this....not the other way around.

Shalom!
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:04 am

This is an example of what the "upper room" may have looked like...

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/isra ... upper-room

Peace
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:31 pm

Thanks for the swift reply. Really, feel free to take your time. I did not mean to rush you. I just did not want to lose contact.

Thanks for breaking down your understanding of Matthew 26:17-19. Clearly, there is some apparent conflict, so at least one of the words will have to "wiggle". Strictly, we will have to rectify our understanding of some words or concepts, or we may, as you have indicated, have to second guess the translators. The question is, "Which amount of 'wiggle' is the most reasonable and consistent?" Preferably, the answer will deviate as little as possible from our own understanding, but we do not always get our druthers, when trying to harmonize our beliefs with the truth. :-)

Yes, based on the lexicon you quoted, I agree that the Greek word for "first", protos, can mean, "before". So, accordingly, we might could have something like:
"Now was the day before the feast of unleavened bread ..."
Notably, the definite article would prevent a more generic translation (i.e., "a day before the feast"). By itself, this does seem fair and plausible; however, I have three concerns, which I hope you could address:
  1. Substantiation - I am having trouble finding a lexicon that supports what you have said. Most of the ones that I have read lean heavily toward an ordinal (first in a series) definition, not just relative positioning. Strong's Exhaustive does show "before" as a possibility, but it is rarely used. But, more importantly...
  2. Corroboration of Interpretation - Luke's account does not leave this wiggle room, because protos is not even used in the verse:

    Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat." (Luke 22:7-8)

    Was Luke in error? Was this not a day of "Unleavened Bread"? Since there is no protos in this verse, how would you shift the interpretation to apply to a day before unleavened bread?
  3. Corroboration of Translation - I can't find any reputable translation that uses "before" instead of "first". They all use "first", without exception:
  • ASV - Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?
  • BBE - Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where are we to make ready for you to take the Passover meal?
  • CSB - On the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do You want us to prepare the Passover so You may eat it?"
  • ERV - Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover?
  • ESV - Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?"
  • GNV - Nowe on the first day of the feast of vnleauened bread the disciples came to Iesus, saying vnto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the Passeouer?
  • KJV - Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
  • NAB - On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples approached Jesus and said, "Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?"
  • NAS - Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"
  • NAU - Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"
  • NET - Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?"
  • NIV - 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?"
  • NKJ - Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"
  • NLT - On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to prepare the Passover meal for you?"
  • RSV - Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?"
  • RWB - Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
  • TNT - The fyrst daye of swete breed the disciples cam to Iesus sayinge vnto him: where wylt thou that we prepare for the to eate the paschall lambe?
  • WEB - Now the first {day} of the {feast of} unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
  • YLT - And on the first day of the unleavened food came the disciples near to Jesus, saying to him, 'Where wilt thou that we may prepare for thee to eat the passover?'
If your proposed translation was reasonable, I would think there would be at least one reputable translation that used it. Do you know of a reputable translation that uses "before" instead of "first"? Not being a Greek scholar, I rely heavily on the work of the scholars represented by these translations.

Now about the use of "prepare" instead of "keep" in Matthew 26:18, I do see how "prepare", "acquire", "make ready" could be used there; however, I again have a few concerns, which I hope you could address:
  1. Harmony with Context - Jesus did not make, prepare, or prepare the Passover feast in any way. His disciples did the preparation, at least so says the context. In fact, the meal was prepared before Jesus and the other apostles even arrived:

    Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?" And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples." ' " So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve.
    (Matthew 26:17-20)

    Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover?" And He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, "Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him. Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?" ' Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there make ready for us." So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover. In the evening He came with the twelve. (Mark 14:12-17)

    So says Luke also...
  2. Correctness - Jesus clearly said that He desired to eat and would no longer eat (necessarily implying that He did eat) of "this Passover":

    Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16)

    Whether or not Jesus helped to prepare the Passover feast is beside the point. He did "eat" it, which is the point.
  3. Harmony with Context - Jesus could not have been referring to His deeds on the cross (procuring a spiritual Passover for all), because He stated:

    ... "I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples."

    This was a limited "keeping" in both location and company. To what other "keeping" (or "making", "procuring", "preparing") of the Passover could it possibly apply?
  4. Corroboration of Translation - Again, no translation uses the definitions you prefer. Everyone uses "keep", "eat", "celebrate", or "observe":
  • ASV - And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
  • BBE - And he said to them, Go into the town to such a man, and say to him, The Master says, My time is near: I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.
  • CSB - "Go into the city to a certain man," He said, "and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My time is near; I am celebrating the Passover at your place with My disciples. '"
  • ERV - And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
  • ESV - He said, "Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, 'The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.'"
  • GNV - And he said, Goe yee into the citie to such a man, and say to him, The master saieth, My time is at hande: I will keepe the Passeouer at thine house with my disciples.
  • KJV - And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
  • NAB - He said, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The teacher says, "My appointed time draws near; in your house I shall celebrate the Passover with my disciples."'"
  • NAS - And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples."'"
  • NAU - And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples."'"
  • NET - He said, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is near. I will observe the Passover with my disciples at your house."'"
  • NIV - He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.'"
  • NKJ - And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples." ' "
  • NLT - "As you go into the city," he told them, "you will see a certain man. Tell him, 'The Teacher says: My time has come, and I will eat the Passover meal with my disciples at your house.'"
  • RSV - He said, "Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, `The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.'"
  • RWB - And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say to him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
  • TNT - And he sayd: Go into the cite vnto soche a man and saye to him: the master sayeth my tyme is at hande I will kepe myne ester at thy housse with my disciples.
  • WEB - And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say to him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
  • YLT - and he said, 'Go away to the city, unto such a one, and say to him, The Teacher saith, My time is nigh; near thee I keep the passover, with my disciples;'
I don't understand your point about "then" being a poor translation in Luke 22:7. There is not enough elaboration for me to see the relevance. Would you please explain, so I can comment?

About "Passover" being better translated "arched room", honestly, I find that a very big stretch. I think the Holy Spirit could have picked a Greek word or two for "arched" and "room". Instead, He picked the word for "Passover", which, furthermore, is the same word used in Luke 22:7, 8, 11, 13, and 15. Did Jesus eat the arched room at that point? Clearly, the word refers to a meal, something that could be eaten, not peculiar architectural arrangement of a room.

I could not find a reputable Lexicon or dictionary that would support this definition (arched room). Thayer, Friberg, Strong's, Barclay Newman, Louw-Nida, Liddell-Scott, Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie, Moulton-Milligan, and Gingrich all say similar. I will condense Thayer for brevity:

4086 pasxa
  1. the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people's deliverance of old from Egypt), or
  2. the paschal lamb, i. e. the lamb which the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of that day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door-posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings
  3. the paschal suppe
  4. the paschal festival, the feast of Passover, extending from the fourteenth to the twentieth day of the month Nisan
Again, nobody translate the Greek the way you have suggested (arched room). Virtually, every reputable translation uses "Passover", including all the English translations I have of the Peshitta (bolded translation abbreviation below):
  • ASV - And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
  • BBE - And the disciples did as Jesus had said to them; and they made ready the Passover.
  • CSB - So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.
  • ERV - And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
  • ESV - And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.
  • ETH - And the disciples did as Jeshu had commanded, and prepared the passover.
  • GNV - And the disciples did as Iesus had giuen them charge, and made readie the Passeouer.
  • KJV - And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
  • LEW - And his disciples did as Jesus had commanded them; and they made ready the passover.
  • MGI - And his disciples did as Jesus had commanded them and they prepared the Passover.
  • MRD - And his disciples did as Jesus directed them, and made ready the passover.
  • NAB - The disciples then did as Jesus had ordered, and prepared the Passover.
  • NAS - And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
  • NAU - The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
  • NET - So the disciples did as Jesus had instructed them, and they prepared the Passover.
  • NIV - So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.
  • NKJ - So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
  • NLT - So the disciples did as Jesus told them and prepared the Passover meal there.
  • RSV - And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover.
  • RWB - And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
  • TNT - And the disciples did as Iesus had apoynted them and made redy the esterlambe.
  • WEB - And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
  • YLT - and the disciples did as Jesus appointed them, and prepared the passover.
All in all, your explanation seems a huge stretch, because it is uncorroborated by the context and most reputable translations. Furthermore, it clearly contradicts verses in the same contexts!

Back to artos, does the definition of artos prohibit application to unleavened bread? Does it always and only refer to leavened bread? If you think so, please sustain.

About the two lamb thing, I thought you brought that up. I see no reason why Jesus could not eat the OT Passover on the evening of one day and be crucified as the NT Passover Lamb the next morning, which was the same day by Jewish reckoning. I thought you objected on some intrinsic, spiritual, or prophetic grounds - beyond the other arguments. If you did not and do not, then I am happy to let this go.

...

Take your time responding. I am not in a hurry. ... Once we are done here, I will be happy to provide my harmony of John's account with the other 3. Just trying to keep things "decently and in order". No need to muddy the water just yet.

And, thanks!!! I really appreciate the heart you have invested in this discussion. Although we currently disagree, I hope you will not interpret anything I have said or done as unkind. I can assure you that is not my intention. It is my sincere prayer and hope that we come to unity upon God's Word.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:23 pm

m273p15c,

I do appreciate your kindness and thought in this matter, but I have just a couple of questions before I digress. Do you make any attempts to learn the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic languages? Have you studied their intricacies, idioms and truly beautiful nature and fluidness?

It seems to me you are utilizing the English translations exclusively...I find this disturbing only for the simple fact that the Bible wasn't written in our language, as you are fully aware. One needs to study out the backbone of the language as it was written to understand the "fallibility" of the scribes who translated the scriptures to others such as our own.

I believe whole-heartedly in the inspired and inerrant nature of the scriptures in their original form...I cannot give the same amount of credit to those that took it upon themselves to get the word into every language on this earth, whether it be to prosper the word, or their own ulterior motives.

I'm truly sorry m273p15c, but I will need to pray hard about whether or not to continue this discussion (you may get one more email from me yet, lol!), as it seems readily apparent to me, that you are holding much too tightly to the English translations of the scripture for your interpretation. Something that will prevent you from furthering your knowledge of the actual message that was delivered, and only stalling the inevitable conclusion, and that being that we will continue to disagree.

I know by the Hebrew and Aramaic texts and by historical evidence, that the Passover (Preparation Day) is the day before the First Day of Unleavened Bread, that Yeshua did not participate in a Passover meal, and that leavened bread was used for the "Lord's Supper". That Yeshua died as the Passover Lamb and that after his death, the rest of the practicing community participated in the Passover meal. Of these facts I cannot be swayed.

I know, based on my studies, that there are many mistranslations from the Hebrew/Aramaic to the Greek, and particularly from the Greek to the English, and even more so when you delve into the "thought for thought" versions of the bible, verses the "word for word" translations. I cannot bear argument of scripture based on the standard of English translations and concordances alone.

I pray that you continue in your studies and further your understanding of the scriptures.

Blessings and Peace to you and yours...
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:41 pm

No, unfortunately I have not had the resources to study the Hebrew and Greek languages in depth. I am not opposed to this, but I have not had the opportunity myself. Does this mean that I cannot understand the Bible?

Honestly, I am very leery of any doctrine that requires intimate knowledge of the original tongues, especially since Jesus Himself quoted from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT.

BTW, what is your native tongue? Is it possible to support your harmony using lexicons, concordances, or grammars for English speakers? If English is your native language, I am hoping that your view can be supported using the same tools that you used to learn these ancient languages in the first place.

If you believe that your harmony can only be supported by such special knowledge (in other words, it is unsupported by all reputable English translations and lexicons), then I would be happy to explain another harmony, which I have read, that does not require such formal education. What do you think? (I don't want to confuse the issue by trying to examine too many thoughts at once.)

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth,

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:36 pm

Dearest Brother m273p15c,

With all due respect, my native tongue is English, but after 100's if not 1000's of hours of bible study I was disenchanted with the abundant amount of contradictions within the scriptural text of the English bibles, and no matter or number of concordance references can make most of these issues harmonize. Therefore I felt obligated to take the advice of Paul in 2 Timothy 2:15, which plainly states:

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I'm not questioning your ability to understand scripture. Also, I've never claimed to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar of any sort...but for anyone (not saying you) to claim that the English translations are the inspired texts is utter nonsense, and anyone believing so is simply propagating improper doctrine. However, by making the statements above that you did, I find it plainly obvious that you have no true desire to humble yourself to learn new truths. Keep in mind, this entire "discussion" began over a loaf of bread.

I digress from this redundant dialogue. Seems all you want to due is win an argument.

May your travels be blessed...

P.S. Before you continue spouting what you profess in your statements above, you may want to read this...


What is the "Septuagint"?

by David Daniels

If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here's how the legend goes:

The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.

In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine inspiration" of the entire Septuagint.

Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?

The verifiable facts:

The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.

The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.

The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!

The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.

New Testament Evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!

Who is pushing the Septuagint?
So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find "original readings" that were supposedly "lost from the Hebrew"?.

Roman Catholics Need It
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!

Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It
The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That's right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!

In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.

So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.

Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.

We Don't Need It
But do we need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.

So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Re: Lord's Supper

Post by email » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:13 pm

m273p15c,

I will cease all correspondence to avoid any ill will between us, but I felt compelled by the spirit to send this to you also with regards to the Septuagint...one must fully appreciate that any references that seem to be from the Septuagint are few and far between, and mostly alluded to in translations taken from the Alexandrian texts of course.


Which Old Testament text did Jesus prefer and quote from?

Introduction:
  1. Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books.
  2. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the Old Testament Books. These 5 books are never quoted in the New Testament: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.
  3. It is not significant that these books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, were never quoted in the New Testament, because they were part of "collections" of Old Testament books. Since other books within the same collection were quoted, this shows them too to be inspired.
  4. The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired." The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.
A. What books were in each of the three collections:


[*]The Law (Torah) -

[/color] Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
[*]The Prophets (Neviim)

[/color] - Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel (one volume), 1 & 2 Kings (one volume), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets (one volume)
[*]The Writings (Kethubim)

[/color] - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (one volume), 1 & 2 Chronicles (one volume)[/b]B. Jesus and the Old Testament:
  1. Jesus, like all the Jews of the first century, divided the Old Testament into three "collections": the law, the prophets, the psalms. Jesus said: "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)
  2. Sometimes the sum of the Old Testament was referred to as two collections: the law and the prophets. Intestingly, Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 as "Law": "Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, I said, you are gods’?" John 10:34. This may explain why most of the time there were two collections referred to as a sum for the whole.


  • "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17
  • "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Matthew 11:13
  • "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16
  • Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." John 1:45
  • After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, "Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it." Acts 13:15
  • "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; Acts 24:14
C. An essay by Craig A. Evans:

Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Craig A. Evans, The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers, p 191-194, 2002



Did Jesus Recognize a Specific Text of Scripture?

Did Jesus recognize a specific text form of scripture? It does not appear so, for his usage of scripture is allusive, paraphrastic, and-so far as it can be ascertained-eclectic. We find agreement with the proto-Masoretic text, with the Hebrew under-lying the Septuagint (perhaps even the Septuagint itself), and with the Aramaic para-phrase. Several examples from each category will illustrate the phenomena. The examples that are chosen are the most obvious, in that they stand over against the readings in the other versions.

A. Agreements with the Proto-Masoretic Text

Some of Jesus' quotations and allusions to scripture agree with the proto-Masoretic text against the Septuagint. In the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29) Jesus alludes to Joel 4:13 (ET 3:13): "he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come." Mark's therismos ("harvest") renders literally the Hebrew gsyr, unlike the Septuagint's trygetos ("vintage"). In Matt 11:29 Jesus bids his hearers to take his yoke upon them: "and you will find rest [anapausin] for your souls." The saying alludes to Jer 6:16 in the Hebrew, where the Lord speaks through his prophet: "walk in (the good way), and find rest (nirgw`] for your souls"; and not to the Septuagint, which renders the passage: "and you will find purification [hagnismon] for your souls." In Mark 13:8 Jesus warns his disciples that in the tribulation that lies ahead "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom." He alludes to Isa 19:2 in the Hebrew, which in part reads: "city against city, kingdom against kingdom"; the Septuagint, in contrast, reads: "city against city, province against province." In Luke 16:15 Jesus asserts that "what is exalted among humans is an abomination [bdelygrna] in the sight of God." This alludes to Prov 16:5 in the Hebrew, where the wise man claims: "Every one who is arrogant is an abomination [tw'bh] to the LORD"; not to the Septuagint: "Every arrogant person is unclean [akathartos] before God." Finally, In the words of institution, Jesus speaks of his blood, "which is poured out [ekchynnomenon] for many" (Mark 14:24), which alludes to Isa 53:12 in the Hebrew: "he poured out [h'rh] his soul to death"; not in the Septuagint: "his soul was given over (paredothe] to death."

B. Agreements with the Septuagint

Jesus' scripture quotations and allusions sometime agree with the Septuagint against the proto-Masoretic Hebrew. Jesus' quotation of Isa 29:13 is quite septuagintal, both in form and meaning (cf. Mark 7:6-7
). The identification of John the Baptist as Elijah who "restores" (apokathistanei) all things (Mark 9:12) seems dependent on the Septuagint form (apokatastesei), or at least a Septuagintal form of Hebrew, not the proto-Masoretic Hebrew, which reads hshyb ("return" or "turn back"). Curiously, both of these elements are found in Sir 48:10, in which the returning Elijah is expected "to turn [Septuagint: epistrepsai; Hebrew: lush},b] the heart of the father to the son, and to restore [Septuagint: katastesai; Hebrew: lhkyn] the tribes of Jacob." Both elements may well have been present in the original Hebrew version of Sirach.22 The quotation of Ps 8:3 (ET 8:2) in Matt 21:16 follows the Septuagint. But this may be the work of the evangelist. Finally, the highly important allusions to phrases from Isa 35:5-6; 26:19; and 61:1 in Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22 agree in places with the Septuagint. Of course, agreements with the Septuagint no longer require us to think that Jesus read or quoted the Septuagint .23 Thanks to the Bible scrolls of the Dead Sea region, we now know that there were Hebrew Vorlagen underlying much of the Greek Old Testament. Indeed, there are examples where Jesus' quotations of and allu-sions to scripture agree with some Greek versions against others. Jesus' use of the Bible attests the diversity of the textual tradition that now, thanks to the Scrolls, is more fully documented.

C. Agreements with the Aramaic

There are also several important examples of agreement with the Aramaic tradition, which arose in the synagogue and eventually assumed written form as the Targum. These examples will be treated in more detail.

There are significant examples in which Jesus' language agrees with the Aramaic tradition. The paraphrase of Isa 6:9-10 in Mark 4:12 concludes with " . . . and it be forgiven them." Only the Isaiah Targum reads this way.zb The Hebrew and the Septuagint read "heal." The criterion of dissimilarity argues for the authenticity of this strange saying, for the tendencies in both Jewish-'' and Christian 21 circles were to understand this Isaianic pas-sage in a way significantly different from the way it appears to be understood in the Markan tradition. The saying, "All those grasping a sword by a sword will perish" (Matt 26:52), has dictional agreement with Targum Isaiah 50:11: "Behold, all you who kindle a fire, who grasp a sword! Go, fall in the fire which you kindled and on the sword which you grasped!" The items that the targum has added to the Hebrew text are the very items that lie behind Jesus' statement. Jesus' saying on Gehenna (Mark 9:47-48), where he quotes part of Isa 66:24, again reflects targumic diction. The Hebrew and the Septuagint say nothing about Gehenna, but the targum has: " . . . will not die and their fire shall not be quenched, and the wicked shall be judged in Gehenna. . . ." The verse is alluded to twice in the Apocrypha (Jdt 16:17; Sir 7:17), where, in contrast to Hebrew Isaiah, it seems to be looking beyond temporal punishment toward eschatological judgment. But the implicit association of Gehenna with Isa 66:24 is distinctly targumic. And, of course, the targumic paraphrase is explicitly eschatological, as is Jesus' saying. The distinctive reading found in Targwn Pseudo-Jonathan Lev 22:28, "My people, children of Israel, as our Father is merciful in heaven, so shall you be merciful on earth," lies behind Jesus' statement in Luke 6:36: "Become merciful just as your Father is merciful." While it is unlikely that Jesus has quoted the Targum,21 and even less plausible that the Targum has quoted him '30 the parallel demands explanation. Most probably the Targum and Jesus both repeat a saying that circulated in first-century Palestine (cf. y Ber. 5:3; y. Meg. 4:9).

There are other instances of thematic and exegetical coherence between Jesus' use of scripture and the Aramaic tradition. The parable of the Wicked Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12:1-12 par.) is based on Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard (Isa 5:l-7), as the dozen or so words in the opening lines of the Markan parable demonstrate. But Isaiah's parable was directed against the "house of Israel" and the "men of Judah" (cf. Isa 5:7). In contrast, Jesus' parable is directed against the "ruling priests, scribes, and elders" (cf. Mark 11:27), who evidently readily perceived that the parable had been told "against them" and not against the general populace (cf. Mark 12:12). Why was this parable so understood, when it is obviously based on a prophetic parable that spoke to the nation as a whole? The answer is found once again in the Isaiah Targum, which in place of "tower" and "wine vat" reads "sanctuary" and "altar" (cf. Isa 5:2 and Tg. Isa 5:2),3' institutions which will be destroyed (cf. Isa 5:5 and Tg. Isa 5:5). The Isaiah Targum has significantly shifted the thrust of the prophetic indictment against the priestly establishment. Jesus' parable seems to reflect this orientation: the prob-lem does not lie with the vineyard; it lies with the caretakers of the vineyard. A few of these components appear outside of the New Testament and the Isaiah Targum. In 1 Eiioch 89:66-67 the temple is referred to as a "tower." Its first destruction is referred to, but with-out any apparent allusion to Isa 5. This Enochic tradition appears in Barnabas 16:l-5, where it is applied to the second destruction, but without reference to either Isa 5 or Mark 12. Thus the coherence between Targum Isaiah 5 and Mark 12 is distinctive, and probably cannot be explained away as coincidence. 4Q500, which dates to the first century B.C.E., alludes to Isaiah's parable of the Vineyard and applies it to the Temple, demonstrating the antiquity of the exegetical orientation presupposed later in Jesus and later still in the Targum.

Even the problematic quotation of Ps 118:22-23 may receive some clarification from the targum. Klyne Snodgrass has argued plausibly that its presence is due to a play on words between "the stone" (h'bn) and "the son" (hbn), which probably explains the read-ing in Targiini Ps 118:22: "The son which the builders rejected. . . ."3' This kind of word play is old and is witnessed in the New Testament (cf. Matt 3:9 par.: "from these stones God is able to raise up children [which in Aramaic originally could have been "sons"] to Abraham"; cf. Luke 19:40) and in Josephus (B.J. 5.6.3 272). The quotation was assimi-lated to the better known Greek version, since it was used by Christians for apologetic and christological purposes (cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 7), and possibly because second generation Christians were unaware of the original Aramaic word play.

Perhaps most important of all is Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near; repent, and believe in the good news" (Mark 1:15). Jesus' "good news" (etiangelion) harks back to the "good news" (bgr) of Isaiah, but not in the Hebrew: "O Zion, you that bring good news ... say, `Behold, your God"' (40:9); or "who proclaims good news of good ... who says to Zion, `Your God reigns"' (52:7); rather, in the Aramaic: "prophets who proclaim good news to Zion ... say, `The kingdom of your God is revealed"' (Tg. Isa. 40:9); or "who proclaims good news ... who says to ... Zion, `The kingdom of your God is revealed"' (Tg. Isa. 52:7).

(Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Craig A. Evans, The Scriptures of Jesus and His Earliest Followers, p 191-194, 2002)
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Lord's Supper

Post by m273p15c » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:16 am

Thank you for the information on the Septuagint. I was not aware that there was any debate on that point, nor did I anticipate you taking objection to it. I thought it was commonly accepted. Regardless, I am looking forward to reading the material you provided and researching the question. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I am sorry that you feel I am just trying to win an argument.

I believe that the Lord desires unity among those that believe in Him (John 17:20-23; I Corinthians 10:11-13). Therefore, seeking unity is important to me. I believe that we can read the Bible and understand, for so God promised (Ephesians 3:3-5). Some things may be difficult to understand (II Peter 3:16-17), which may require some extra work (II Timothy 2:15), but they are not impossible. If we fail, it is our fault - not God's. So, all I know to do is to continue looking at Scripture with those who are interested, seeking a common salvation and unity in Jesus.

Consequently, when I discuss the Bible, it is not a matter of academics, entertainment, social curiosity - or pride. It's about truth, unity, and eternity.

If you think that my testing and questioning your arguments is trying to win an argument, then I am sorry for you. It is my burden and responsibility, for so we are all encouraged to do (I John 4:1; Jude 1:3; I Timothy 6:12; II Timothy 1:13; Revelation 2:2-3). Last time I checked, you did not blindly accept everything I said, so why are you throwing stones at me?

FWIW, I obviously do not think the English translations are inspired; otherwise, I would not have referenced a host of translations, nor would I have quoted the lexicons and dictionaries to define the words in the original language.

My friend, I think you have judged me unfairly. For truth's sake, I hope you will think better of it.

I am sorry this has generated ill towards me. I can assure that I feel none towards you. In love, I have prayed about this many times. I am deeply disappointed and saddened to see our discussion end this way. ... I was actually looking forward to sharing my harmony with you of John's account with the other 3 gospels.

May God help us to have a sincere love of truth (II Thessalonians 2:9-12; Galatians 4:16),

m273p15c
May God help us to love truth sincerely and supremely (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

Post Reply