|
Post by MsMarie on Jan 10, 2009 3:33:01 GMT -5
I too would agree it is the meaning behind it. Some rituals are meaningless, ie the ritual of getting up, breakfasting and getting dressed. But this ritual or practice of the bread and wine, has great significance. I am not sure what the point is really - is it that there should be no taking of the bread and wine, or that there should be no special importance attached to it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2009 10:27:24 GMT -5
People can (and will) create whatever rituals they like -- and if they find that it gives them something good that they wouldn't have otherwise --- fine. Actually most cultures are full of ritual. But I don't believe that Jesus ever meant 'his rememberance to become a physical ritual. And I definately don't believe that folks who fail to see a wholesome purpose in to regularly practice any of the countless physical rituals on this subject, are less zealous Christians for this.
Jesus never suggested or practiced it as a ritual himself. If these verses suggest a ritual -- then there are countless others that have equal basis for creating other rituals -- with an equally good thought behind them,
|
|
|
Post by MsMarie on Jan 10, 2009 11:05:49 GMT -5
I see what you are saying and I suppose in this instance then we would have to agree to differ. I see Jesus as establishing a practice for us to remember His sacrifice for us and to have communion with Him and our fellow believers. If He never meant it to be a practice for Christians, then I cannot, from the other point of view, see how this could possibly be viewed as a mistake if we honour Him by doing this in remembrance.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jan 10, 2009 13:04:56 GMT -5
I believe Jesus was continuing His practice of annually keeping the Passover, and since this would continue, He was saying that now when the "cup of Redemption" was taken (part of the Passover Seder) He should be remembered. Since deliverance from Egypt was a foreshadowing of deliverance through Christ from sin, the remembrance of deliverance would continue, but now Christ would be the centre of it.
When He says "whenever you drink it," He could be speaking of the annual celebration of Passover. It does appear that way to me when read in context, however I'm certain He would not object to our remembering Him often...even as frequently as whenever we share a meal together!!
Blessings, Linda
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2009 14:00:09 GMT -5
I see what you are saying and I suppose in this instance then we would have to agree to differ. OK msmari, But to continue the discussion without trying to be contentious I wonder how using the same logic, a person can deal with the numerous other rituals such as feet washing etc, that religion has developed from even more compelling scripture -- John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
|
|
|
Post by geometricjeff on Jan 10, 2009 15:27:22 GMT -5
[/quote]
OK msmari, But to continue the discussion without trying to be contentious I wonder how using the same logic, a person can deal with the numerous other rituals such as feet washing etc, that religion has developed from even more compelling scripture --
John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
[/quote]
Yes, people can create many rituals. I presume Christianity continued only those rituals that the Apostles, under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit, taught people to continue. I think it is abundantly clear that the ritual attached to Holy Communion was one they intended to be continued. I do not know why the Apostles did not consider foot washing to be continued as a ritual. I'm guessing they saw a big difference between washing each other's feet, and communing with the Lord's Body and Blood that began at their Lord's last supper, which was held in the context of a centuries-old Passover ritual given to Moses by God Himself. (I'm not trying to be flippant, that is truly my guess as to why one continued and the other did not.)
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jan 10, 2009 15:41:34 GMT -5
At a Brethren church I attended, they held a foot washing during the service once a year. Usually around Easter. Men and women were separated for the foot washing. In large congregations, it simply isn't feasible to take communion every Sunday due to time constraints. The Methodist church I attended held special Communion Sundays. We would sit at a table set for 13, with one plate always empty. It made taking communion more special and solemn. This was usually done around Easter also. Communion was offered every Sunday at my Grandma's house where meetings were held, but then there were usually only 5 attending adults. Taking the emblems is all in what you make it. It's what it means to you personally. If you find it empty and ritualist, then that is what is for you. If it is a joyful celebration within your heart, then praise be! I could never stand all the empty "must do's" and "must not do's". Any wonder I'm Pagan?
|
|
|
Post by geometricjeff on Jan 10, 2009 15:47:51 GMT -5
As I reread the posts on this topic, I'm struck by something.
It seems to me that many of us think what Holy Communion - whether or not it is to be construed as a ritual - is about is remembering Jesus. I don't think that is right.
Luke 22:19 - "And he [Jesus] took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." In today's English Jesus would say, "Do this in remembrance of me."
So.... I think Christ, in that clause, is telling us two things: (1) What He wants us to do; and, (2) Why He wants us to do it.
First, the "why". The reason He wants us to do "this", is in memory of Him. That explains why we are doing what we do.
Now, what is it that He wants us to do? Is it simply to remember Him? I don't think so. He said to "do this". If "do this" meant to remember Him, then in effect Jesus would be saying, "Remember me in remembrance of me." That doesn't seem right. So, what does this refer to when He said "do this"? I think this refers to what Christ had just done - namely, to give them His Body to eat. As He had just said, "This is my body...." This fulfills perfectly what He earlier promised He would do as recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2009 16:47:25 GMT -5
Yes, people can create many rituals. I presume Christianity continued only those rituals that the Apostles, under the inspiriation of the Holy Spirit, taught people to continue. To me, the writings and feelings of folks living and seeking to serve God in the hundreds of years after Jesus lived on the earth are a wonderful source of inspiration and help in many ways -- but they are not neccesarily authoritive or divine in any way. Discerning the degree as to which they were inspired by the holy spirit is a responisbility that is placed on us as individuals. Jesus promised us 'the comforter', or his spirit to personally guide us in this. -- and this is to be the ultimate authority as to the rights or wrongs directing our own lives. I am thankful for the different characters in the new testament era that authored descriptions of how they felt about the teaching of Christ --- the writing of such description has continued till today. Not everything written can have been inspired by the holy spirit. It is quite unclear as to what the 'the breaking of bread' (that I presume you refer to as your feeling was the "ritual of the eucarest" (a la 2x2 and many others ) was refering to -- Actually the first clear description (that I have found) of the ritual as such is in the early Catholic church.
|
|
|
Post by geometricjeff on Jan 10, 2009 21:28:00 GMT -5
To me, the writings and feelings of folks living and seeking to serve God in the hundreds of years after Jesus lived on the earth are a wonderful source of inspiration and help in many ways -- but they are not neccesarily authoritive or divine in any way. Discerning the degree as to which they were inspired by the holy spirit is a responisbility that is placed on us as individuals. Jesus promised us 'the comforter', or his spirit to personally guide us in this. -- and this is to be the ultimate authority as to the rights or wrongs directing our own lives. I am thankful for the different characters in the new testament era that authored descriptions of how they felt about the teaching of Christ --- the writing of such description has continued till today. Not everything written can have been inspired by the holy spirit. I have no competence to discern such a thing as the degree to which the Apostles and their followers were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit has never given me such promptings that I am aware of. The only way I know about Christ is through the teachings I've heard from others. And that is how they themselves learned of Christ. And so on, back to the Apostles. No one knows of Christ except through the teachings of others who have come before them. I don't see how I can look at what the Apostles and their followers taught about the Faith and then evaluate to what degree they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Where would I get this ability from? How would I know that my sensitivity to the Holy Spirit is greater than theirs?
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jan 10, 2009 22:03:26 GMT -5
The breaking of bread is directly from part of the ritual in the Passover Seder. In fact it is quite amazing how the Jews take the Matzah (unleavened bread), from the centre of a tri-folded cloth, and break it. In the top layer there is one Matzah...in the bottom another, but the one in the middle must be broken and then hidden away to return later at the end of the Seder.
There are AMAZING metaphors related to Christ in Judaism's Passover Seder. Learning about these has given me a whole new appreciation for the "bread and wine."
Blessings, Linda
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2009 7:08:01 GMT -5
Actually, seeing that the only church in our little village is the Swedish Luthern church, which in many ways is filled with ritual -- and pretty much everything from the priests clothing to the holy communion is saturated in tradition and meaning -- I have tryed to figure out what all these different things have for a significance in this church. Mostly they are extremely well thought out and are meant to signify and to nurture the most beautiful aspects of Christianity - quite admirably. Many of them have their roots in old testament events and traditions.
However to me this is not the same thing as suggesting that they are part of the teaching of Christ -- or even remotely part of his example. Their application influences a miniscule part of Christianity -- and maybe sometimes, but not always even in a positive way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2009 7:29:34 GMT -5
The only way I know about Christ is through the teachings I've heard from others. And that is how they themselves learned of Christ. And so on, back to the Apostles. No one knows of Christ except through the teachings of others who have come before them. I don't see how I can look at what the Apostles and their followers taught about the Faith and then evaluate to what degree they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Where would I get this ability from? How would I know that my sensitivity to the Holy Spirit is greater than theirs? That is where faith in the ability of the spirit of Christ to lead us, comes in. Jesus promise to us was to send this comforter so that we would be able to discern the rights and wrongs in the course of our lives. -- But if we choose to trust something else (like a book or the people arround us)-- that is our choice! Edgar John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
|
|
julio
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by julio on Jan 16, 2009 16:36:07 GMT -5
To MsMarie: you said:
Julio, although I am not with workers in so many of their attitudes, but as I mentioned previously, there is scriptural support for denying the unworthy. If I was asked to give the bread and wine to someone who I personally knew was being wilfully or continuously sinful, then I would not want a part in helping that person to eat and drink 'unto damnation' (those are the words). The hard part is not applying our own judgements to others, but somewhere the line has to be drawn.
My guess is that the vast majority are not those 'that you personally knew....' were sinning. So when you deny a child of God the cup of forgiveness? Passing the bread right by, and not questioning it? Is there responsibility there? And what should you personally do about it?
In another place, all are not 'worthy', someone said. Only because of Christ's mercy and his shed blood can we hope to 'worthily partake'.
Okay, another question. If one is given permission by workers in certain areas, but denied in others..... are they part of the church in one area, and not in another? This makes it appear a huge issue.
|
|
|
Post by MsMarie on Jan 17, 2009 7:48:35 GMT -5
Julio: I can remember from professing days that quite often when people felt they had behaved unworthily, they would then let the bread and wine pass by and that is a personal thing. Fortunately I am not a worker or pastor and don't have to make these decisions, but for instance, say an unmarried couple were living together openly, had no intention of doing otherwise, and presented themselves to partake, then that is totally different. I did mean to make the distinction of intentional and continued or repeated sin, as against sinning and repenting. Forgiveness is always there for the repentant who forsake sin.
|
|
|
Post by MsMarie on Jan 17, 2009 8:01:54 GMT -5
Edgar: Have given some thought to the footwashing comparison and feel there is none really. The former pertained to an servant example and attitude and that the apostles understood this is clear in that there is no further record of footwashings, but there is very much about the breaking of bread. Luke 22 Jesus instructed them as a command 'this do in remembrance of me'. When a sovereign says 'this do' then we should rightly take it as something He said should literally be done. The early apostolic church did it regularly (Acts 2:46, 20:7 etc) so how could anyone possibly come to countermanding such a clear directive of Jesus?
The Passover was a commandment for Israel to keep perpetually for a remembrance. We Christians who are the true Israel now remember our Passover lamb in the bread and wine for perpetuity.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jan 18, 2009 22:44:38 GMT -5
Hi MsMarie, This is called, "Replacement Theology." I don't believe the Christian Church replaced Israel, but it has been grafted in. Romans 11-15 quite directly deals with this issue. I read a book called, "Your People Shall be My People," by Don Finto, which helped me consider another possibility besides "Replacement Theology." www.amazon.com/Your-People-Shall-Be-My/dp/0830726535Blessings, Linda
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2009 5:00:53 GMT -5
Edgar: Have given some thought to the footwashing comparison and feel there is none really. The former pertained to an servant example and attitude and that the apostles understood this is clear in that there is no further record of footwashings, but there is very much about the breaking of bread. Luke 22 Jesus instructed them as a command 'this do in remembrance of me'. When a sovereign says 'this do' then we should rightly take it as something He said should literally be done. The early apostolic church did it regularly (Acts 2:46, 20:7 etc) so how could anyone possibly come to countermanding such a clear directive of Jesus? The Passover was a commandment for Israel to keep perpetually for a remembrance. We Christians who are the true Israel now remember our Passover lamb in the bread and wine for perpetuity. OK Marie,IF it it is important to find a way to redefine the passover from part of the old testament so that it can fit into our modern day service to God -- I guess I can understand you. However the similarity of the ordinance of the yearly passover described in Exodus, to the bread and wine in a weekly Sunday morning meeting in the home, requires a far bit of imagination. As far as I can read Jesus never has suggested this particular old testament rite to be something to be perpetuated forever either --- but with a proper imagination I suppose it is possible. Seems to me that that Jesus kept a respectable distance from any hint that our faith should be expressed by ritual.
|
|
|
Post by MsMarie on Jan 19, 2009 10:15:28 GMT -5
Without using too much imagination, it is easy to see that Jesus did not just suggest but actually gave a commandment that we keep the bread and wine as the Christian's new covenant Passover meal "this is My Blood of the new covenant" which he asked us to do in his remembrance. 1 Cor 27-32 'until He comes'. The frequency of this commemoration is illustrated in Acts many times since the apostles gave instructions and advice on the practice, giving warnings about treating it too lightly.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 22, 2009 7:10:01 GMT -5
Edgar: Have given some thought to the footwashing comparison and feel there is none really. The former pertained to an servant example and attitude and that the apostles understood this is clear in that there is no further record of footwashings, but there is very much about the breaking of bread. Luke 22 Jesus instructed them as a command 'this do in remembrance of me'. When a sovereign says 'this do' then we should rightly take it as something He said should literally be done. The early apostolic church did it regularly (Acts 2:46, 20:7 etc) so how could anyone possibly come to countermanding such a clear directive of Jesus? There is another mention of foot washing in the New Testament: "Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work." (1 Timothy 5:9-10, ESV) Even if there is no other discussion of the practice in the NT letters, this does not mean it didn't occur. It would be a historical fallacy arguing from silence.
|
|
|
Post by MsMarie on Jan 22, 2009 9:34:18 GMT -5
Foot washing was a hospitable custom in the Middle East then and is now on some occasions, so I am not surprised it has another mention (even if I was not aware of it) because Jesus once rebuked his host for not doing this.
I really think the bread and wine is another issue altogether and cannot be equated. The footwashing custom is just that and not disputed but the commandment of Jesus on the bread and wine is in an altogether different category. The discussion is whether Jesus intended to set up a ritual (practice, observance, call it what you will) by his manner of showing his disciples how to do this, telling them it signified His Body and Blood, and commanding them to do likewise. I think there is indeed very little ritual Jesus set up, but I firmly believe that baptism and the bread and wine are intended to be sacraments to the Christian believer.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 22, 2009 14:54:02 GMT -5
The breaking of bread is directly from part of the ritual in the Passover Seder. In fact it is quite amazing how the Jews take the Matzah (unleavened bread), from the centre of a tri-folded cloth, and break it. In the top layer there is one Matzah...in the bottom another, but the one in the middle must be broken and then hidden away to return later at the end of the Seder. There are AMAZING metaphors related to Christ in Judaism's Passover Seder. Learning about these has given me a whole new appreciation for the "bread and wine." Blessings, Linda Where is this tri-folded cloth ritual described in the OT? I have been to a number of Seders and have never seen nor heard of this.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Jan 22, 2009 18:28:58 GMT -5
I'm not certain the ritual can be traced to the O.T., but it has become part of the Jewish Passover Seder tradition, and I believe is included in the Talmud. It's called a Matzoh Tash (Bag for unleavened bread), and is often sewn into a bag having three compartments. Jews for Jesus have an extremely interesting demonstration about the Passover Seder. It can be seen here: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5272606142394767394If you let it load to about the 24 minutes and 50 second spot, the demonstrator begins speaking about the Matzoh Tash. The video is about 40 minutes altogether. Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by moralityagain on Jun 28, 2009 0:34:18 GMT -5
Well, the bread and wine. I think that if each person were to have their own personal bottle of wine and some good garlic bread then prophesies would be happening a lot more and maybe people would be a lot more relaxed and also get arrested on their way home. Well, Jesus liked to think a lot about blood and sacrifices and things because it was an old idea and lots of probably good people had been sacrificed to make the crops grow or to stop the rain or whatever else was the problem at the time. So, the idea of sacrificing yourself is sort of like being a war hero and dying for your fellow soldiers. Sacrificing yourself usually is a very gruesome event where you lay down on an alter and then take a big old knife or something and cut off your own head or stab yourself so you can die to save the crops. Well, this time the crops were quite a bit bigger. The saving of souls. Well, saving souls is a hobby of God and I guess also of Satan. But, Jesus had to be sacrificed to save our souls. Now, God could have just decided to offer grace and save our souls without anyone having to die for us and especially his only begotten son. So, it seems like this idea was a continuation of the old idea of sacrificing virgins and prisoners or whatever to God who would then make winter not so harsh or whatever the general request was of God at the time of the sacrificing. So, it could be that we just need to go back to sacrificing people and if we find ones who thing they are godly or are Jesus or something we can just offer them up. I know where there is a good pit and we could maybe make some sort of little pyramid thing on top and then toss people down the hole after we cut their heads off or something and then offer up prayers and make God happy. Well, I guess not. too weird. So, we just need to be living sacrifices and mostly just sacrifice up dollars and hope God likes that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 2, 2009 21:16:25 GMT -5
As I reread the posts on this topic, I'm struck by something. It seems to me that many of us think what Holy Communion - whether or not it is to be construed as a ritual - is about is remembering Jesus. I don't think that is right. Luke 22:19 - "And he [Jesus] took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." In today's English Jesus would say, "Do this in remembrance of me." So.... I think Christ, in that clause, is telling us two things: (1) What He wants us to do; and, (2) Why He wants us to do it. First, the "why". The reason He wants us to do "this", is in memory of Him. That explains why we are doing what we do. Now, what is it that He wants us to do? Is it simply to remember Him? I don't think so. He said to "do this". If "do this" meant to remember Him, then in effect Jesus would be saying, "Remember me in remembrance of me." That doesn't seem right. So, what does this refer to when He said "do this"? I think this refers to what Christ had just done - namely, to give them His Body to eat. As He had just said, "This is my body...." This fulfills perfectly what He earlier promised He would do as recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel. If I may add a bit more to your "what" and "why"...Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52). His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). And...Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.From:www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 3, 2009 20:32:14 GMT -5
I've often wondered about the bits of bread and the tiny sips of grape juice actually really being what Jesus meant for us to do....in one gospel Jesus said "Drink ye all of it!" Now was He saying to His Apostles "Okay, guys, all of you drink of it!" or was He actually saying "Okay guys, drink all of it." Sometimes when I read what Paul has to say about eating before others that are hungry in I Cor11, then I think Jesus was telling us to commeorate Him with a full passover meal....thus if it's a Passover meal it is only going to happen once a year, isn't that right? And if we're to drink all of it, then it's going to be divided equally among all that are there and each party is to be responsible for drinking all of it...no one person gets more then another.....same thing with the "unleavened" bread. Another reason I wonder about this is because in Zech. the later chs. we read about after Jesus returns with all His saints and that they'll have the feast of the tabernacles once a year for all the world to go up to Jerusalem to worship Jesus then during the feast of the tabernacles.....Is Jesus going to expect us to keep the feasts days that were set up in Moses' day? I kind of think we will at least a couple of them until He returns, then the feast of the tabernacles will be all that's done! JMO
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 3, 2009 21:44:56 GMT -5
I've often wondered about the Is Jesus going to expect us to keep the feasts days that were set up in Moses' day? I kind of think we will at least a couple of them until He returns, then the feast of the tabernacles will be all that's done! JMO We have our own feast day--Sunday.
Holy Communion is one of the sacraments instituted by Christ--instituted at the Passover Supper with the apostles. Sacrament--from Wiki--"efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ ". Sacraments are outward signs that effect graces in us as we partake of them.
Passover was the OT requirement for the blood of the lamb to save God's people. What did they do with the sacrificed lamb whose blood was applied over the doorway to protect them? They ate it--thus the feast.
Holy Communion is the NT, new covenant requirement, instituted by Christ, for the blood of the Lamb (Jesus) to save us and nourish us so that we might have life eternal. John 6:53-56. That is why Jesus instructed his followers to "eat His flesh and drink His blood".
"Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us."
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 4, 2009 10:15:59 GMT -5
"It is quite unclear as to what the 'the breaking of bread' (that I presume you refer to as your feeling was the "ritual of the eucarest" (a la 2x2 and many others ) was refering to -- Actually the first clear description (that I have found) of the ritual as such is in the early Catholic church."
I've read and reread those verses in Acts....I think that perhaps there's been a great misinterpretation of that "breaking of bread", it goes on to say "from house to house"...in the light that there was a large group of new converts, they would have been granted hospitality by those who lived nearby so that they could "continue daily in the Temple". We have to remember that these were Jewish people at that time though they seem to have diverse languages amongst them. They seem to be Jews that had been 'scattered" but yet had returned to their old homeland and in the process of time, learned about the glorious gospel and believed in Jesus. If they were "continuing daily in the Temple", I do not see how they could have or would have felt it necessary to "worship in mtgs." in the homes? I think that this "breaking of bread" was simply a hospitality shared with rank strangers, and it was a peaceful, agreeable time....yes, they would have enjoyed fellowship one with another because they were of like minds, weren't they?
I am beginning to wonder really if we're to celebrate Jesus' Passover so often, though yes, I know Jesus said "As oft ye do it..."....should it not be done at the time it was set forth by the law of Moses? Is it not right to celebrate the life eternal that Jesus has bought for all mankind or at least for many who will believe in Him? When I read Zech. 14, it is very indicative that the feast of the tabernacles will still be going on...and that is when all will gather together in Jerusalem to worship the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. So if that feast is to be held EVEN AFTER Jesus returns, then are we so wrong as to instill the weekly emblems? Are we not supposed to be having the Lord's Supper at the time of year it was held when He was here on earth? Doesn't that bring a better memory of what He has done for us? Doesn't the weekly or frequent passing of the emblems become ritualistic? How many mtgs. has anyone set in with the emblems before them and Jesus not spoken of? How many have been in mtgs. when maybe only 1 or 2 out of 15 to 20 have spoken about Jesus? If the emblems mean what they should, then the reminder of them before us should beget most of us to testify something about Jesus, wouldn't they? I don't see it........I think of an older worker now long gone speaking to us once about he was in a Sun. a.m. mtg. and no one spoke about Jesus! NO ONE. I asked him if he spoke about Jesus, he mentioned that he didn't speak that day due to some throat ailment but he sure wanted to squeak something out....seems like he'd had some neck surgery or something and had been prohibited on speaking very much. He went on to say, he left that mtg. that day feeling very empty and dry! How sad we'd do that to one another and to ourselves! Isn't it?
|
|