The Last Supper was not the Passover Meal

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Reclined

“Jesus reclined with the twelve …”. It is stated that Jesus and his disciples “sat” down – not, “reclined”. Mk.14:18 Lk.22:27 Where it is said that John “leant”, the meaning is that he leant over against Jesus. (“The Greek words here would be more literally rendered, “He having fallen upon”. It is so translated in eleven out of the twelve other places where it occurs in the New Testament. The idea is evidently of one moving and leaning towards another, so as to get closer to him …”. Ryle) The passage does not say that John reclined on a bench or on the floor at a table of his own – which would have been the case had he reclining. The action was that of sitting down, and not of reclining or lying down on one’s side. Compare anakeimai: “Sitting down” at ordinary meals; Mt.9:10, Jn.6:11 John would not “incline” upon Jesus; Jn.13:23 Sitting “at table” Lk.22:21 Jn.13:28 like Western custom implies, at one, and a higher, style of furniture; The preposition ana means“(sitting) up(wards)”, in such a position that feet could be washed hanging down over a bowl; anakeimai is an equivalent of anaklinoh – compare Mt.8:11, 14:19, Lk.7:36, 13:29, but anaklinoh is the word more likely to be translated “to lie down”. “To incline” is derived from anaklinoh, and not from anakeimai. Anaklinoh is notably not used in the Last Supper passages. Anakeimai constitutes two words, ana and keimai, “to be situated, placed – besides other meanings. Its meaning of “lying down” is not exclusive or as strong as in the case of anaklinoh.
The fact that John is mentioned as having “leant over” or “reclined” implies that only he so behaved and that the other were sitting upright at the table, not leant over or reclined.

5.1.1.7.2.4.​

The Table

The custom of reclining required an own table for each person or small group. Assuming the Last Supper was Passover Meal it is argued that different tables were used and not one for all only as implied and stated by the Gospels. Lk.22:21 Jn.13:28 The argument should reach the opposite conclusion if the Gospels are accepted as first in authenticity and authority, and should state that because the Gospels indicate only one table, there could be no possibility of reclining at the Last Supper; it could not have been the Passover meal – or Jewish Seder of the Passover Meal, or an Essener ritual. Pixner (The Leonardo da Vici portrait of the Last Supper is truer to reality than is often accepted. Da Vinci with his passion for physics must have given closer attention to the precise language of the Gospels.)

5.1.1.7.2.5.​

Wine

“The Gospel accounts of the Last Supper mention only two of the four seder cups – the first and the third …”. The Rosens’ mention of the supposed use of wine four times – of which two are allegedly mentioned in the Gospels – is meant to indicate that the Last Supper was indeed the Passover Meal. But wine was used with virtually every meal and was no peculiarity of the Passover meal. Its use is of no significance as indication that it was the celebration of the Passover the night before the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. At the Last Supper, Jesus introduces the wine as the symbol of his own blood to the exclusion and annulment of blood and sacrifice. No sacrifice could longer represent the blood of the Lamb of God. Wine instead receives a meaning it never had before, nor will have, except when used in the Lord’s Supper.
There is a total absence of the mention of wine in the Mosaic institution of Passover. Wine was only much later added to the ritual of Passover, and then not wine in the ordinary sense of fermented wine, called “produce of the vine” on the occasion of the Last Supper and throughout Scripture, but as unfermented grape juice – like unleavened bread for Passover. Grape juice with Passover is Jewish kosher, not Christian or Biblical.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Sequence and Number

Mark 14:18 and Matthew 26:21 state that Jesus handed “the (one) cup” to the disciples after the Meal had started, while the kiddush over the first cup of wine, introduced the Passover Meal. No suggestion, in any case, exists in any of the Gospel records of the Supper of the Lord, to conclude that the cup was filled more than once. The supposition of more than one time’s use of wine at the Last Supper is untenable. The significance the wine receives from the death of Christ once for all means that it should be taken only once. According to Luke 22:17 Jesus first handed the flask over to the disciples for them to divide it among themselves. He meanwhile continued with breaking the bread, and after eating of the bread, returned to the wine. Mark and Matthew don’t mention the distribution of the wine, but refer to the drinking of it, once only, after the bread.
An interval between the filling and the drinking as with the Jewish Passover Seder is also not to be found in the Last Supper. Paul says that the participants in the Lord’s Supper should wait on each other, meaning they should all drink together and once only. Paul has no interval between filling of the cups and drinking it in mind.

5.1.1.7.2.7.​

Closing Song or Hymn

“And when they had sung an hymn, they went into the mount of Olives.” Mt.26:30 Hymns were sung at almost every ceremony during the whole paschal period – as with any other religious holy day. See Nehemiah 12. Singing proves not that the Last Supper was the Passover Meal. When Israel came up out of the Red Sea they sang praises to the Lord. Thus did Jesus make songs of Worship and Praise part of the celebration of his coming up from the depths of death victorious!

5.1.1.7.2.8.​

The Washing of Feet

“The first hand washing by the host set him apart from the company.” No mention is made of any washing of hands before the Lord’s Supper. On the contrary, one might expect the minimum of such paraphernalia with Jesus’ institution when thinking of his rebuke of the Pharisees over “washings” of pots and pans and hands. Mk.4:7,8; 7:3,4 Also Paul’s plea that believers should first do whatever necessary at home before coming to the Lord’s Table suggests that they should wash their hands at home and not at the Table.
“In washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus used this part of the regular ritual to teach His lesson of humility and love …”. This washing of feet had nothing “regular” about it. It was not regular in order of custom – before meals generally, but here afterwards. It was not regular in order of status, because Jesus was not host, but guest. The guest never washed the feet of the host. But Jesus while being guest of honour, did. And Jesus thereby not only taught the hosts, but prepared himself for that “humiliation to the end” which he would undergo on the impending day.
Washing of feet formed no part of the Mosaic institution of Passover Feast. The washing of feet in the event of the Lord’s Supper, separates it irrevocably from the Passover Meal.
The Passover came before the journey, out. Washing of feet came at the end of the journey – when Jesus would complete it and arrive in the Kingdom. (Israel entered the Promised Land through the sea, Ex.15:13.17. At the Lord’s Supper washing of feet was newly instituted. The disciples saw the Kingdom of God before they died! Their journey would end in Jesus’ arrival in the Kingdom through resurrection from the dead. “If I wash thee not (thy feet) thou hast no part with Me!” Not only forgiveness of sins – symbolised in washing of the whole body in baptism “with” Jesus in his death, has been attained, but also regeneration. Having entered into the Kingdom and “into the rest” – symbolised in the washing of feet of the Lord’s Supper – “with” Jesus in his resurrection from the dead, the goal had been reached!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Time and Date

On the Day of Feast everybody had to have found accommodation and had to have settled in order to partake of the Passover Meal. That Jesus and his disciples came from Bethany and had the Supper, indicates that it was not Feast Day yet.
When the disciples went to “prepare”, they found everything in the room ready. They could “sit down”, “within an hour”. Lk.22:7,12,13 It was “evening”. Mk.14:17 Mt.26:20 This was an earlier time than the customary for the Passover Meal just before midnight. The time the Last Supper was eaten makes it impossible to have been the Passover Feast Meal. Not only can no indication be found that the offer was already sacrificed, but the Jews the morning after the Last Supper would not enter Pilate’s house because they still had to eat Passover. When Jesus and the disciples sat down the evening for this meal, it was only the start of the day on which the Passover had to be slain. Only after sunset the following day would the paschal offer be served.
Judas, while it was night, after the Supper went out to betray Jesus. He needed time. Jesus was arrested and brought before Annas and Caiaphas before he was brought before Pilate and Herod and again Pilate, before at daybreak he was “delivered” to be crucified. All this implies that Judas left from Supper at early night, in order to have had enough time. Taking all into account, it indisputably indicates that the Last Supper was not the supper of the Passover Feast. And that implies just as indisputably that the day of Christ’s crucifixion – which began with the evening of the Last Supper – had to be the day “before Passover”, Jn.13:1 – “The Preparation of Passover”. Jn.19:14
The Last Supper, was not the Old Testament Passover. It is a New Testament institution, novel and uniquely Christian. Arguments against such an origin and character of the Lord’s Supper are arbitrary and forced. Jesus introduced every element of the Last Supper. In no other way but a purely original way, could the Last Supper, be “The Lord’s Supper” – kuriakos deipnon, 1Cor.11:20, the Christian “mystery” or “sacrament”, which is neither the last ordinary meal of Jewish tradition, nor the first of unleavened bread, of the Passover Feast.
None of the Rosens’ proposed comparisons between Passover and the Last Supper are tenable. They sterilely reflect the traditional comparisons and are Judaistical orientated. They lack a purely evangelical approach to the problem of the time and nature of the Lord’s Supper at its institution the day before Passover Feast when Jesus He being the Passover Lamb was crucified on the Preparation of the Passover.

5.1.1.7.2.10.​

More than One Meal

“…He took that bread after He first gave thanks at the end of the meal; then He broke it and gave it to them … Jesus here instituted the new memorial …” p.58c We could not trace such a sequence of actions in any of the Gospels. What we could find, was the clause “as they sat and did eat” in Mk.14:18 – when Jesus spoke to his disciples about his betrayal – and, after this, verse 22, “took bread, and blessed, and gave to them and said, Take, eat, this is my body …”. Herein lies not even a suggestion that Jesus instituted the Christian Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper on occasion of some ceremonial meal (allegedly the Haggigah, “a holy day peace offering”. the Rosens, p.54 The Bedikat Chametz – the day for search of leaven in order to put it away – had started sunset. That does not prove that the upper room Supper was Passover Feast Meal or Haggigah.
The phrase, “as they ate”, esthiontohn, in Mark and Matthew, however, being a participle, present tense, means “at meal”, “with supper”, “while at table”. It is the way they used to speak – an “idiomatic expression”. It does not mean that a first meal was finished before the Last Supper began. Such an inference, if applicable, is applicable consistently – which will result in three meals on this night: the one supposedly implied in Mk.14:18: “And as they sat and did eat …”; and another (consistently) implied, “as they did eat”, in verse 22. Then, according to the Rosens, “He first gave thanks at the end of the meal” – before “He took the bread” and “then broke and gave it…” – which would be the Last Supper and third meal!
The Rosens’ conclusion that, “Looking to the time when Israel would be left without an altar and without a sacrifice, He used the “aphikome (The “after dish of the Passover Meal – the middle, “hidden, or “buried wafer) for the first time to represent not only the Paschal lamb, but His own body!” is reached over avidly and arbitrarily. Least of all the Lord’s Supper was the “after dish” of the Jewish Passover Seder. And their conclusion that “(Judas) left before eating the Passover (and) had, in effect, excommunicated himself …” is purely imaginative, and incidentally wrong, for Jn.13:30 confirms that Judas, “Then having received the sop went immediately out”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Christ the Passover Lamb

The most important reason why the Last Supper could not have been the Meal of Passover Feast, is that Jesus on this Passover would Himself be the Lamb. If, supposedly, Jesus wanted to have Passover Meal with his disciples, but still were to be sacrificed (at the right time for the Passover lamb to be slain), He had to have had Passover Meal before the time the lamb could be killed. The Passover sacrifice could not be eaten before it was even slaughtered. Jesus also could not have eaten Passover after the sacrifice was offered – for He was to replace it on this occasion, at the appointed time, which would be the time of his death the next day.
The Christian Supper of the Lord is “celebration”, “memorial”, not of Passover, but of “the death of death in the death of Christ” (John Owen). Through the providence of God, the Lord’s Supper was instituted before that which it was to be a memorial of had actually happened. (Even the Passover had been commanded – “instituted” – before it had actually happened.) The Lord’s Supper commemorates Jesus’ death on the cross, and He instituted it before He was crucified.
The Passover of which Christ was to be the Lamb, by the foreordination of God happened according to the times and dates set for Passover in Scripture. Jesus would die at the appointed time. The meal of this night could not have been the meal of the Passover Feast that was only eaten after the Passover lamb had been slain.
J.C. Ryle remarks: “One thing at any rate is very plain and noteworthy. The chief priests and their party made much ado about eating the passover lamb and keeping the feast, at the very time they were about to slay the true Lamb of God of whom this passover was a type!” (Emphasis CGE)

5.1.1.8.1.​

Day of De-Leaven – Before Passover On Passover

Professor Bacchiocchi, in his End-Time Issue No. 73, claims, “… were the Gospels’ writers alive today, I have reason to believe that they would appreciate help in correcting some of their inaccuracies. Incidentally, some of the inaccuracies are very glaring. For example, the Synoptic Gospels place Christ’s crucifixion on the day after Passover (Nisan 15), while John on the actual Passover day (Nisan 14). It would be nice if we could ask them to reconcile their differences and give us the exact date of the Crucifixion.”
Bacchiocchi says John places Christ’s crucifixion “on the actual Passover day” (that is, on the actual Feast Day), which is plainly untrue, because John says “it was the Preparation of Passover”. This day, says Bacchiocchi, “the Synoptic Gospels place on the day after Passover” – while they say it was the very day “the passover should be slaughtered”!
The “Meal” at “The Last Supper” then, was not the Passover Sacrifice “Eaten” – i.e., it was not “Passover Feast”. This supper was for preparation for Passover’s Sacrifice – the Death of Jesus the Lamb of God. Herein the Providence of God was at work. It can be seen in the use of the phrase: “The disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready for Passover”, Mt.26:19. Christ’s “appointment” was more than a mere command. His all mighty dispensation overruled the actions of the disciples who first seemingly took the initiative by approaching Him and asking if they would prepare, verse 17. The Greek for “appoint” is sunektacsen (suntassoh): “They gave the thirty pieces of silver for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me”, Mt.27:9-10. “As many as were ordained (tassoh) to eternal life believed”; Acts13:48 “There is no power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God”, Ro.13:1.
Sun plus bainoh in, “These things happened unto them for ensamples”, means, “these things were destined to happen to them”; 1 Cor.10:11. “To the servants of corruption … it happened according to the proverb”, that is, “It is determined that it should happen to them”. 2.Pt.2:19, 22 (God in Christ destines, not blind fate.)
Objective reading of John 19:14 in its context, cannot help the perception of Godly foreordination in every aspect of Jesus’ preparation, anguish, betrayal, deliverance and crucifixion in perfect fulfilment of Passover, whether or not some detail to us may seem not important. Faith finds evidence in this of Christ’s deity and genuine humanity, though for the unbeliever it may mean nothing. Had God’s overruling not been present in these events, the symbolic significance of Passover would have been lost.
Jesus then had himself prepared for taking the place of the Passover lamb and to be slaughtered in its stead. The meaning of the description of the day and time on which Christ would experience the fulfilment of Passover can but literally indicate “the Preparation of Passover”. Jesus attended and served his own Preparation Meal to be given over to be killed for the sins of his elect – its significance ever since.
Day starts with evening. The night of Last Supper and the day of Crucifixion, in that sequence, are the same day. This day is described as being, “before passover”; Jn.13:1“not on the Feast (day)”. Mt.26:5 Jesus’ “time”, which was “near” – not present yet. Mt.26:18 “before I suffer”; Lk.22:15 “before it happens”; Jn.13:19 “against / for Passover”. Jn.13:29 “The day of un-leaven on which the Passover had to be slain”; Lk.22:7 “The first day of de-leaven when the Passover was always slaughtered”. Mk.14:12 No other day in all of Scripture has ever been so definitely described. Surely one may assume that the intention was to make it easy for the reader to distinguish this day from any other. And the reason for such a distinction was to be able to see how
Jesus would fulfil the meaning of Passover “in his own body” through death, and, through resurrection. (Not in eating the Passover Feast meal in any other way.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

“Not On the Feast”

The Jews conspired to kill Jesus, only “not on the Feast (Day of Eating the Passover)”. They had good reason for excluding the 15th Nisan for their purpose. But, like when they decided to let one man die instead of many, Jn.11:50 their wisdom was vain, for they only acted in fulfilment of Scripture. The Gospels would not have mentioned this limit to the Jews’ time, were it not eventually to have come true because it was divinely ordained to come true. The reason the Jews gave for not wanting to kill Jesus “on the feast”, “lest there be an uproar of the people”, Mk.14:2, is said to be a peculiarity of the Western Text, added by a redactor copyist to elude the supposed problem of date in this passage when compared with verse 12. No necessity remains for such an explanation when the two clauses in verse 12 are seen as complementary. The second phrase defines the first: “The first day of de-leaven (a-dzumos), when they killed the passover”.
The phrase “Not on the Feast” doesn’t mean after the Feast, because then everybody would have left – and logically Jesus as well. The Jews’ conspiring was in order to get some plan as to how to kill Him before the feast because his presence at the Feast is what they wanted to prevent. The whole idea of mentioning, that “after two days was the Feast”, was to show that the Jews had but little time to act before the Feast Day.
The expression en tehi heortehi - “on the feast” is explained as meaning “not among the feasting throng”, for the obvious reason that these interpreters assume that Jesus was in fact crucified on the Feast as such, 15th Nisan. On the Day of feast or not, a crowd assembled soon enough, and Jesus was crucified amongst the feasting regardless.

 

[DHK]

G.E.,
I posted a short post with just some Scripture in it. The Scripture plainly stated that Jesus said "I will celebrate the Passover with you." Was he lying?
He told them more than once to go and prepare a place "that we may celebrate the passover". Was he being deceptive, in milseading the Passover? Don't you believe the words of Scripture. It is much easier to believe the simple words of Scripture as recorded in the four gospels then to expain it away with your tradition and extra-biblical sources. Jesus and his disciples partook of the passover, if for no other reason than the Bible says they did. Is that not sufficient enough? If that thought or even theology runs against what you beleive then put away your pride. One cannot argue with what the Scrpture says. Go back and read my post again.
DHK

 

[Eliyahu]

I think GE doesn't understand Jewish custom when they eat.
They often lean on something when they eat.
Also, I would like to kindly remind GE that:

1) Day of Unleavened Bread came ( LUke 22:7)
2) The hour came ( Luke 22:14)
3) Jesus desired to eat this Passover with desire ( 22:15)
4) Jesus had supped (1 Cor 11:24-30)

GE,
Do you still require more evidence?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I think GE doesn't understand Jewish custom when they eat.
They often lean on something when they eat.

GE:
The Gospels say they sat down at one table for the last Supper

Also, I would like to kindly remind GE that:

1) Day of Unleavened Bread came ( LUke 22:7)

GE:
I told you the Greek has nothing of bread; It says a-dzumos - de-leaven

2) The hour came ( Luke 22:14)

GE:
I told you this was not the time of the Passover meal - which was just before midnight - not an hour after sunset

3) Jesus desired to eat this Passover with desire ( 22:15)

GE:
Yes, He desired, it says - it doesn't say He ate; It implies He did not eat.

4) Jesus had supped (1 Cor 11:24-30)

GE,
Do you still require more evidence?

GE:

You haven't had any; how do you think I might think you have more?

But you simply ignore anything I have said. and carry on repeating the same things I have answered in detail.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
"I posted a short post with just some Scripture in it. The Scripture plainly stated that Jesus said "I will celebrate the Passover with you." Was he lying?"

It seems I must be on the rude side to be heard.
No DHK, Jesus never lied; I don't want to think you suggest I said He lied. But I tell you frankly: The 'Version' you quote, lies, and it, makes Jesus say something He never said. Show me this text in the KJV or in the Greek - any apparatus!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
"He told them more than once to go and prepare a place "that we may celebrate the passover"."

GE:
Show me ONE verse where it says that: 'He told them more than once ..."to go and prepare a place"! It does not exist. It says they FOUND the PLACE, prepared. A place not 'where', they ate the Passover, but a place to PREPARE, SO "THAT we MAY celebrate the passover". That is a preparation-meal; no Passover meal itself.
Let me make myself clear at this stage: The time was in fact already 'Passover-Season' - the 14th of Nisan had already begun with sunset; so in that sense the Last Supper was a meal during Passover. But is was not THE Passover Meal (Seder) of lamb and matsag - the first meal of unleavened bread and lamb. It perhaps co-incided with the Bedikat Chamets of Judaism - although it wasn't it. As I've said before: This is the NEW Testament Institution of the Lord Jesus' Supper -- not the Jews' midnightmeal of passover!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
"It is much easier to believe the simple words of Scripture as recorded in the four gospels then to expain it away with your tradition and extra-biblical sources."

GE:
For me it is far more difficult to believe the modern versions which are influenced by tradition and only aim at strengthening traditional errors. They are extra-biblical sources par excellence!
The simple words for me -- because of this --- have become the initially difficult original, the Greek. I don't trust and I don't believe these clever claims 'from the original languages' a bit any longer, when it comes to ANYTHING that in any way, may imply or involve Sunday-observance --- for these specific efforts at manipulating God's Word under the pretense of scholarship are sun-worship most audacious.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
" Jesus and his disciples partook of the passover, if for no other reason than the Bible says they did."

GE:
Jesus and his disciples partook of the Lord's Supper, which till today is kept pure by the Reformed Church at least, with ordinary bread and ordinary wine ... if for no other reason than the Bible says so.
During the evening of Nisan 14 in the year of our Lord's death - its first part of beginning - Jesus and His disciples ate the NEW Christian-Lord's, meal - the simple food of bread and wine, because He said, I am the bread of life! Christians are not Jews; and the disciples ate the Last Supper with their Lord, not because they were all Jews, but because they followed the Christ and His unprecedented instructions that led to His introduction and institution of these elements of as by faith to partake of HIS body and blood --- not of any lamb's that pointed to Him, for today, this day of this meal, He has come and has entered in into His suffering unto the salvation of His Elect!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

These are my ideas concerning the Lord Jesus' Holy Supper of the Communion of the saints. "Extra-biblical"? Are they?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You obviously havn't noticed - not one of you - my referring to these two Scriptures: John 18:28 and John 13:29 --- The Last Supper was not the Passover meal!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
"If that thought or even theology runs against what you beleive then put away your pride. One cannot argue with what the Scrpture says."

GE:
My last word for today - tomorrow it is work again ...

If any thought or theology runs against what I beleive as long as what I believe is to the honour of Jesus Christ, I won't put away my pride or boasting in Him. One cannot argue with what the Scrpture says. Solus Christus!

 

[DHK]

DHK:
" Jesus and his disciples partook of the passover, if for no other reason than the Bible says they did."

GE:
Jesus and his disciples partook of the Lord's Supper, which till today is kept pure by the Reformed Church at least, with ordinary bread and ordinary wine ... if for no other reason than the Bible says so.

As I previously said:
"It is much easier to believe the simple words of Scripture as recorded in the four gospels then to expain it away with your tradition and extra-biblical sources."
But you appeal is not really to the Scriptures; it is apparently to the Scriptures as seen only through the rose colored glasses of the Reformed Church. You fail to see clearly or objectilvely the Scriptures.

During the evening of Nisan 14 in the year of our Lord's death - its first part of beginning - Jesus and His disciples ate the NEW Christian-Lord's, meal - the simple food of bread and wine, because He said, I am the bread of life.

John 6:48-50 I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
John 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
--JJesus was teaching to a Jewish audience, in the synagogue itself. If the bread was leavened it would have been abhorrent to them; offensive. He compares himself to the manna which came down from heaven. Manna is unleavened bread. When Jesus referred to himself as the bread of heaven, the picture is still of unleavened bread--that which has no corruption.

Christians are not Jews; and the disciples ate the Last Supper with their Lord, not because they were all Jews, but because they followed the Christ and His unprecedented instructions that led to His introduction and institution of these elements of as by faith to partake of HIS body and blood --- not of any lamb's that pointed to Him, for today, this day of this meal, He has come and has entered in into His suffering unto the salvation of His Elect!

The Christians (the disciples of Jesus) were all Jews. So was Christ. Yes, Jesus Christ was a Jew. He was born of Mary, of the tribe of David. He will one day sit on the throne of David. He, humanly speakng is "Jewish." So were all his disciples. The church did not start until Pentecost, and yet the last supper was instituted before then.
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Incidentally,

DHK said, "the rose colored glasses ", which brings one to the question of what kind of wine it was .... obviously red, because Jesus associated it with his blood ... red blood. The colour can only be inferred. Now I don't know about wine-making; but since when does one get the fresh juice from the grape red? Wine only becomes red through the fermentation-process if i'm not mistaken.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Just because Jesus compared the fruit of the vine with His blood, does not mean it was red wine. The fruit of the vine could have been any color.

Jesus could have been associating it with His blood because of richness. His blood certainly was rich.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
"As I previously said:
"It is much easier to believe the simple words of Scripture as recorded in the four gospels then to expain it away with your tradition and extra-biblical sources."
But you appeal is not really to the Scriptures; it is apparently to the Scriptures as seen only through the rose colored glasses of the Reformed Church. You fail to see clearly or objectilvely the Scriptures."

GE: I may return this to answer you -- it applies to you, DHK, yourself. You obviously hold some position in your Community. I don't: maybe because I am the one who lacks the courage to belong because of what I believe.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DHK:
"John 6:48-50 I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
John 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
--Jesus was teaching to a Jewish audience, in the synagogue itself. If the bread was leavened it would have been abhorrent to them; offensive. He compares himself to the manna which came down from heaven. Manna is unleavened bread. When Jesus referred to himself as the bread of heaven, the picture is still of unleavened bread--that which has no corruption."

GEE
Jesus didn't necessarily by any means here, taught during Passover-time when by exception it would have been un-leavened bread time -- Normally they ate ordinary bread like you and me today.
Manna was manna - we have no idea what it was like -- you cannot make your deductions.
Again, you argue in circles : who says leaven represents corruption --- always; and not good things as well?

But why are you so reluctant to accept the Lord's Supper is just what it says, the Lord's and not the Jews'? Why do you argue insistently it is the Jews' Passover? Christianity has gone ahead --- it has left Judaism behind. (Judaism also entails the pure but redundent OT institutions clung to in spite of Jesus' incarnation and resurrection. Judaism basically developed as the result of nothing but the denial of Christ and the truth of His coming.)