Why is the Passover still observed?

[FWI]

When, the true meaning of the Passover was to protect the first born of the Israelites from the death angel, which passed through Egypt. The eating of a meal had little to do with this reality…Except, what to do with the lambs, which would be killed! Yet, the lambs haven't been able to be killed, since about 70 A.D. (no temple), then what's the purpose? Even, Christianity and the N.T. suggests that there is a "connection" between the Passover and the death of the Christ.

So, is there a benefit for both Jews and Christians to observe the Passover? And, if so, what is it?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by bjs]

There was no Temple of God when the first Passover was celebrated, nor would there be for the next five hundred Passovers. Even when there was a Temple, there was never a command to move Passover celebrations to the Temple nor is there evidence that people ceased celebrating the Passover in the homes in favor of the Temple. The Passover has always been celebrated primarily in individual homes and that has never been unlawful.

It is common knowledge that before 70 A.D, the Israelites were required to meet in Jerusalem or the place where God chose to place His name, for the sacrificing of the Passover lambs and eating the meal. They were also commanded not to sacrifice the Passover within any of their gates (Deut. 16:5). Thus, to have a Passover meal, you "must have" a Passover lamb that was killed in the temple at Jerusalem or a place where God put His authority and name upon…Where, the place (other than Jerusalem) cannot be decided by men, but only by God!

You both seem to be confusing the Passover sacrifice with the Passover meal. They were not biblically the same thing. The Passover meal was on Nisan 14 and was a family affair; the lamb did not have to be slaughtered at the temple (which is why the meal could predate the construction of the temple).

After its construction, no sacrifices were legitimized outside the temple but the Passover lamb eaten in the homes was not a sacrifice it was a commemorative meal (hence the name Passover meal).


JW



RELATED POSTS

What lessons can we learn from the story of the Passover?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 422#961422

When was "The Passover"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 932#893932

Is there scriptural support for the commemoration of Christ's death?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 417#961417

[2timothy316]

It is common knowledge that before 70 A.D, the Israelites were required to meet in Jerusalem or the place where God chose to place His name, for the sacrificing of the Passover lambs and eating the meal. They were also commanded not to sacrifice the Passover within any of their gates (Deut. 16:5). Thus, to have a Passover meal, you "must have" a Passover lamb that was killed in the temple at Jerusalem or a place where God put His authority and name upon…Where, the place (other than Jerusalem) cannot be decided by men, but only by God!

https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/16-5.htm
"You will not be allowed to sacrifice the Passover offering in just any of the cities that Jehovah your God is giving you."

"Gates" can also be translated to "towns" or "cities". Thus while it's true the Passover lamb must be prepared in Jerusalem in Jesus day, I can find no text that the lamb must be killed at the temple. Mark 14:12-16 says that Jesus had his disciples prepare the Passover meal at a man's house in Jerusalem. They were not instructed to prepare the meal at the temple.

Logistically wouldn't be possible for a few priest to slaughter 100s of thousands of animals in an evening and the temple can't hold millions of people at the same time. Nor could they take turns slaughtering the lamb at the temple and then bring it back to the place they were staying before the festival was over. Besides Exodus 12:6 says that 'the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it [The lamb] at twilight". This certainly must have meant the entire city of Jerusalem and not millions of people crammed into the temple.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Are you aware that the bible record has Jesus commanding his disciples to commemorate his death? That it is (with the exception of the baptism of new disciples) ONLY religious ceremony initiated by Christ in scripture?

I'm aware that the Christ told his disciples to remember him and in doing so they would partake in an understanding of what is meant by coming out of sin. This, of course, is the main topic of the gospel. The idea that the death of the Christ rescues us from sin is not quite true. Hence, it is a fact that humans die, because of their own sins and/or the sins of others! There is no such thing as humans escaping from the penalty of sin…But, what seems to be the topic of concern to most is: What happens after we die? Well, for the most part nothing, we just cease to exist. There is no heaven or hell for the dead…Where, in Ecclesiastes 9:5, it is stated that the dead are forgotten.

The fascinating fact about the Christ is that he had the right to continue to live physically, because he didn't sin! When the Christ was being arrested, he tells the attending group that he could request about 72,000 angels to assist him! He tells Pilate that he would have no power over him unless it was given to him by God…But, the Christ gave this up willingly. Why? Because, he needed to be resurrected and then glorified, because of the plan of God for mankind. This is the only way that the dead have any hope of being remembered again and to learn the truth of God's ways…So, the focus should be on remembering the love that God and His Son has for the created beings, not the terrible death that the Christ suffered…

Are you suggest that obeying Jesus' request as recorded in the bible is a "bad" thing for believers to do and that bible believing Christians should ignore what the bible says Christ asked them to do, in order to better please Christ?

What, I'm suggesting is that there are problems with the recorded bible and God and the Christ know it! In Jeremiah 31, God is outlining the New Covenant and implies that: He (God) will put His laws and ways into the minds of certain individuals and that others will not be able to influence them with unreliable records…

For instance: In the NWT it is recorded in Acts 9:7 that the men traveling with Paul heard a voice, but didn't see a light, but in Act 22:9, it is recorded that the men saw a light, but didn't hear a voice. It is issues such as these that make the records of many bibles questionable…Hence, just because groups/individuals claim that "all" the bible is the inspired word of God or His Son doesn't make it factual. Therefore, staying as close as possible to God (through the Christ) is our only hope to see the truth that is promised. This cannot be achieve by putting complete trust in a book…

[brianbbs67]

Yes we can't observe it as commanded in the bible. We can pay homage and memorialize it as Isreal did and has done when conquered. Easter has no place with The Feast of Unleaven Bread.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 12 by 2timothy316]

I can find no text that the lamb must be killed at the temple.

In Leviticus 17:1-9, there is ample instructions that forbids a burnt offering or sacrifice to be offered anywhere else, but the temple. The individual who refused, would be cut-off from among his people. In Deuteronomy 12:27-28, it is even more informative:

And, thou shall offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and blood, upon the altar of the Lord thy God and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God and thou shalt eat the flesh (KJV).

Thus, all sacrifices were required to be brought before the priests at the temple of God. The interesting point about this fact is that the Christ was not…Which, would bring up the question: Was he really a sacrifice?

Mark 14:12-16 says that Jesus had his disciples prepare the Passover meal at a man's house in Jerusalem. They were not instructed to prepare the meal at the temple.

However, these verses are a clear mistranslation and lack of understandings to the reality of the process, which the observance of the Passover entailed. These verses are part of the reasons why the Jews don't take the N.T. seriously…Where, most of Christianity has abandoned this clear error and now refers to this event as: the last supper.

Logistically wouldn't be possible for a few priest to slaughter 100s of thousands of animals in an evening and the temple can't hold millions of people at the same time. Nor could they take turns slaughtering the lamb at the temple and then bring it back to the place they were staying before the festival was over. Besides Exodus 12:6 says that 'the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel must slaughter it [The lamb] at twilight". This certainly must have meant the entire city of Jerusalem and not millions of people crammed into the temple.

You bring up some good points here, which allows me the opportunity to explain.

The first Passover was unique and more secretive than most think, at the least to the Egyptians. After, the plague of flies, Pharaoh called for Moses and said: Go, sacrifice to your God in the land. But, Moses refuses! Why? Well, Exodus 8:25-32 exposes the reality of the situation…

Therefore, the response of Pharaoh would have angered God and resulted in more advanced plagues. It would also require that the killing of the lambs and the eating of the meal to be held in their homes, as secretively as possible. Yet, this was not the original intent. Where, Exodus 40 explains the beginning of the "tabernacle of God" era and the next phase in worshipping God correctly.

As far as, the average lambs killed in the temple (about 200,000) during the first century A.D., the temple was adequate enough to handle such a large amount. The real issue was the "earlier change" from the head of a household killing the lambs to only (mostly) the priests/Levites doing this duty. This caused a change in the eating of the Passover meal, which was not a major part of the service. Where, it was a requirement that the killing of the lambs must be done on the 14th of Nisan. Hence, the eating of the Passover meal was changed to the beginning of the 15th of Nisan from the beginning of the 14th of Nisan, as was required for the first Passover and others after. This was not a problem with God.

But, during the first century A.D. there were about 7200 priests and many more Levites, which could perform the required duties. Thus, it would take about 1500 priests/Levites about 6-7 hours to accomplish the killing of the lambs and the additional required duties. This is about 20 lambs per hour, which would need to be processed…Therefore, it is important to realize just how large the temple was and that the entirely of the people were not crammed into the temple at one time…The priests/Levites had (up to) the entire day of the 14th to perform these duties.

[JehovahsWitness]

What, I'm suggesting is that there are problems with the recorded bible …

Yes well we are in TD&D forum and since here the bible is authorative and simply questioning a passages authenticity is not an acceptable counterarugument here, I am uninterested in addressing what you perceive in its recorded "problems" with scripture. As it stands, a commemorative ceremony centred on his death is a recorded direct command attributed to Christ in the bible canon.






Regards,


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The idea that the death of the Christ rescues us from sin is not quite true.

While Eccesiates 9:5 does present the condition of the dead you have presented no scriptural proof supporting your above statement. Do you intend to?

[De Maria]

When, the true meaning of the Passover was to protect the first born of the Israelites from the death angel, which passed through Egypt. The eating of a meal had little to do with this reality…Except, what to do with the lambs, which would be killed!

On the contrary, the meal was the final part of the sacrifice. The first part was the offering. The meal was the consuming and it made the people of God fulfill a priestly role.

Yet, the lambs haven't been able to be killed, since about 70 A.D. (no temple), then what's the purpose?

There's more than one sacrifice in Israel. In the meantime, the Todah sacrifice has replaced the Passover or more precisely, has substituted for it.

Even, Christianity and the N.T. suggests that there is a "connection" between the Passover and the death of the Christ.

The connection between the two is "exodus".
One is the Exodus of the people of God from Egypt to the promised land.
The other is the exodus of the people of God from sin and death to righteousness and eternal life.

So, is there a benefit for both Jews and Christians to observe the Passover? And, if so, what is it?

The commemoration of God's intervention in their lives and their salvation. For Christians, Christ is their Passover Lamb of God and the Mass is their new Feast.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 5 by FWI]

bjs wrote:
Many Jews continue to eat recently killed lamb at Passover.


This is meaningless! The only authorized means, by which the Passover lambs could be sacrificed was within the temple of God. This type of deciding what is permissible to God is common place among men. Yet, still unlawful…

the first Passover was kept in Egypt, with no temple and no priesthood, and was killed by the head of the household.

Presumably, since it is commanded to be kept as a feast and a memorial forever (without caveat for a lack of the temple), then, if you can't do the part that came after the priesthood was established, then you go back to before it was in existence, but you keep the Passover throughout your generations forever.

One other point I'd like to make, it is NOT a Jewish command, it is a command for All of Israel... which includes all 10 tribes.

Soj

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 12 by 2timothy316]

Thank God they can't or Mcdonalds would have it all.