Cyberstones-A Lutheran Blog

The three "k's" are actually not the Biblical model--that was my main thesis. Jesus consistently reversed the standard (patriarchal) attitudes of his day regarding women--he would speak to them; touch/heal them; insist that in the world to come they would not be given and taken as property; turn the guilt back upon the male accusers; the women, who were not allowed to testify in court, were the first to testify to the resurrection, not the men...just to cite a few examples. Ancient Israelite society and modern Islamic societies have certain points in common regarding the treatment of women. None of it was the original intention of God in Eden. The curse placed upon Eve said that she would desire (love/wish to serve) her husband, but he (her husband) would rule over her. This plus pain in childbirth!

As my original response said, only one office in the Church is reserved for men. This is the standard, official position of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. Logically, that means that all other offices--congregational chairman, elder, trustee, acolyte, and so on--can be filled either by men or by women. The argument is sometimes made that elders, for example, are extentions of the office of the ministry. This is not possible since the office of "elder" (as understood by LCMS) is neither Biblical nor confessional. It exists only by human arrangement. This goes for all of the offices in the church apart from the ministry.

Quote: "The Last Supper was the first Lord's Supper and the Last Passover meal. It was not a typical Passover."

Yeshua took a part of the Pesakh Seder and invested it with a new meaning. So yes, it was the first Lord's Supper--obviously! You're right. However, It was not the last Passover for the world's Jews! ;-) There is no real evidence that this was not a "typical" Passover. Everything in the Gospel accounts seem to assume that it was. Paul refers to the "typical" name given to the 3rd Cup (Cup of Blessing) in 1 Cor. 10:16, as a for instance. The burden of proof is on those who deny that it was a typical Jewish Passover Seder.

I believe that several issues are being confused: First of all, there is something of an unwillingness to admit that the Last Supper was a standard (Jewish) Passover. Several times on this thread various people have suggested (to paraphrase) that "no one knows" what a Seder would have been like in the 1st century. This comes as a surprise to Jews, who have maintained this custome/mitzvah for thousands of years! What you assert is rather like saying that no one knows what a Christian Eucharist would have been like before the council of Nicea in 325 CE. On the surface, a ridiculous thing to say.

In short, I think that it might come across as being rather arrogant of Christians to tell Jews that Jews don't know what was going on in Judaism (at least historically)--but the Christians do. You would probably not take it well if someone asserted that, say, the Muslims understand Christianity better than the Christians.

The standard practice for many thousands of years, is that each person at a Seder had to consume their own cups of wine. The wine was to bring joy--the joy of being freed from slavery in Egypt. It is reasonable to assume that the Seder meal described in the Gospels followed this custom. But even if Yeshua passed around his own cup to all of the disciples, my point still stands--that there is no absolute reason to demand the common chalice--to make it a "hill to die on" as many confessionals seem to do. Perhaps there is a kind of symbolism involved, but the Eucharist is still effective or valid whether in the small cups or from the common chalice. It is a distinction without a difference--a scholastic point that need not divide people. This has been my main point all along.

Having been around Christians for many years, I have noticed that there is something of a drive to separate the New Testament from its Jewish roots. For example, the fact that all of the NT writers, and Yeshua, were native speakers of (semitic) Aramaic, not Greek, is more or less ignored. (Knowledge of Greek was not terribly widespread. The Rabbis even forbade the teaching of Greek. Josephus himself wrote his works in Aramaic first and complained of the difficulty of Greek.) Most of the stress is placed on the Greek translation of the Aramaic originals--which are, more or less, completely ignored (the Peshitta). Hebrew is made one option of several at seminaries. Instead of deriving interpretations from Hebraic, rabbinic, or Biblical sources, the pagan philosophies of Greece (Plato and Aristotle) are used to explain Christian and Jewish concepts. This has led to some stunning mistakes on the part of the Christians. The RC insistence on celibacy, for example, is not derived from Biblical roots--that glorify marriage and family--but rather from (Neo)Platonic and gnostic sources. Augustine's insistence that the marital union was the source of original sin--Augustine was a Manichean--a group that taught that the physical was bad, including the marital union. And Origen's loathing of his own body is also thoroughly Greek (pagan) in origin, not Biblical/Hebraic. His interpretation of Shir-Ha-Shirim (Song of Songs) reflects his (Greek) insistence that the body is impure and of little or no worth--best dispensed with. Contrast this with the Hebrew and NT insistence of the resurrection of the body--even the assertion that G-d took on human flesh (basar).

But I digress...

Jews have long memories! We have preserved the knowledge of who are descended from the kohanim, for example--just in case the Temple is ever rebuilt ;-) There may be changes in the details of the Pesakh Seder, but I would suggest that the differences are very minor. The practice of using four cups of wine is well attested to historically. Yeshua makes reference to the fact that He will not drink of the "fruit of the vine" until He drinks it new in G-d's kingdom. That could be a reference to the ancient prayer used for Shabbat and for Pesakh--Baruch atah adonai eloheynu melekh ha-olam, boreh p'ri ha-gafen, ameyn. (Blessed art Thou o Lord our G-d, King of the Universe, maker of the fruit of the vine.) I bring this up to indicate the antiquity of Jewish practice.

Very early on, Christianity passed out of Jewish hands. Much of the Semitic heritage of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures was lost or forgotten by the gentile converts to the Church. Sadly, most have never wanted to explore it. (For instance, at least Matthew's Gospel was written first in Aramaic, which is a cousin to Hebrew and Arabic, then translated into Greek! Aramaic was also the first language of the Messiah!) I suggest that with the long memory of G-d's ancient people, Yeshua would recognize and feel at home in the Sederim of today. He did say: "Drink from it all of you." This doesn't necessarily mean that they passed around one (and only) cup. To my way of thinking, the argument about one chalice versus the small individual cups is needless--a distinction without a difference.

All the best! Study Hebrew!