"I will never drink again of the fruit of the vine

[eternal]

until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

What do you guys think of this passage in light of

Matthew 27:48 Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink.

There are other passages that proceed this part in each of the gospels where it says bassicaly,

Matthew 27:34 they gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.

Mark simply says He refused....but Matthew puts it clearly that He drank.

Is this significant? Or am I missing something? I'd like to know what others think. Thanks.


peace.

[the answer]

Well what does he mean by kingdom of God? I'm sure he drank after he rose from the dead. Was that the kingdom of God?

[eternal]

So you think that maybe Jesus could have taken another drink 5 minutes after saying that? What happened between that meal/statement and Him struggling on the cross, that would permit those words to make sense?

[gertzadik]

Avenu (Our Father) is truly Wonderful.

Today is the 7th day of Pesach (Passover, a High Holy Day). Last Thursday every observant Hebrew participated in a Seder. These are Yah's appointed times ...

So goes this discussion during these times. Incredible.

Luke 22:14

"When the time came Y'shua and his emissaries reclined at the table, and he said to them "I have really wanted so much to celebrate this Seder with you before I die! For I tell you, it is certain that I will not celebrate it again until it is given its full meaning in he Kingdom of Elohim"
(David H. Stern Translation)

He then said (in that context) that he will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine until the Kingdom comes.

By saying he will not drink again was refering to the traditional drinking of wine when celebrating Passover. You drink 4 cups of wine with different meaning to each cup, and different blessings before each cup.

It does not mean that he will not drink any wine, rather that this will be his last Passover cup before the Kingdom of Messiah is established on Earth. When that day somes, Passover will truly be fufilled and we will all understand what it truly means!

Thinking Hebrew eliminates so many seeming contradictions.

peace

[the answer]

Dat makes sense

[eternal]

I will have to consider that. Thank you for sharing.

May I add my thoughts to this quote?

Thinking Hebrew eliminates so many seeming contradictions.

I agree. Many have become upset when I have shared that the culture of the Hebrews was very narrative and they didn't tell stories the same way we do. So when there are massive chronological "contradictions" in the gospels, people will either ignore them, or just say we are to dumb and sinful to understand how they really agree with each other.

I have tried to share that the gospel writters did not have post enlightenment, scientific method, 21st century journalistic standards they were beholden to. Rather they told stories according to PURPOSE, and lumped stories together in that fashion. This is why we will find one author saying "this happened after that", and then another gospel writter saying "that happened after this."

This is one reason I have found that "inerrancy" is a forced debate into the scripture, and is not relevant to the bible. That "inerrancy" is a concept and product belonging to a post enlightenment era, and must not be read into the scriptures. This of course is not to be confused with infalibility as some have made the error of doing.

What do you think?

[gertzadik]

eternal said:

... the gospel writters did not have post enlightenment, scientific method, 21st century journalistic standards they were beholden to. Rather they told stories according to PURPOSE, and lumped stories together in that fashion.

W.O.R.D.

Theres a book called "The Case for Christ" which does a real good job explaining that.

peace

[the answer]

E, what do u think "inerrancy" means? Are u saying the bible isn't?

[eternal]

admin said:

E, what do u think "inerrancy" means? Are u saying the bible isn't?

No, I am saying its irrelevant. It is an incompatible concept with the way the authors wrote the scriptures.

"Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences."

It depends on how one takes this. Luthers disciples said,

"Each and every thing presented to us in Scripture is absolutely true whether it pertains to doctrine, ethics, chronology,topography," etc. (Johann Quenstedt; 1617-88)

Obviously this is an incompatible concept with how the biblical authors preserved their history. It is why people believe there were literal 24 hour days before a sun was created, and there was night and day before any star, sun, or moon or otherwise was yet invented. But "inerrancy" forces them to believe this, the very thing St. Origen declared as "foolishness."

It is the same forced principle that enslaves Christians to make sense of the passover/crucifiction narratives of the Synoptics and John's gospel, where the former suggests Christ ate the passover dinner with His disciples before being betrayed and crucified, and the former making the point to say that it was the celebration of the Passover that led the Jewish leaders to hurry up and get the crucifiction over with...John had a THEOLOGICAL point to make, and was unconcerned with history. We have a hard time accepting that because of our culturalization and how we have been trained to read stories and accept something as "truth" or credible."

They were not bound by our standards, plain and simple.

[king neb]

Eternal,

I would certainly agree with the literary analysis approach. I think you would like what we are doing on paltalk on Tuesday nights. We are doing that very thing with Genesis and the Revelation. Sam is writing some original stuff going through Genesis, emphasizing narrative, story, patterns, etc. Mike is using James Jordan who takes that approach in the Revelation. Mike’s passion is hermeneutics and has been working on a ‘literary’ hermeneutic now for quite some time. So I feel ya on that one.

However, something I don’t understand (and im not necessarily pointing to you because I haven’t talk to you much about this) is that I have seen a number of people go that route and then turn around and pit the ‘literary’ approach against, say, a ‘systematic’ approach, as if it had to be one or the other. Why is that? What Sam and I have been attempting is BOTH. For example, a systematic theology that’s derived from story. Does that make sense?

For example, it’s a very curious thing that Saul, David, and Solomon all reigned for 40 years. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the author is very purposeful in pointing this out. This will later point to Jesus’ 40 year reign over Israel (preterism..hehehe) But does this rule out the possibility that they all did in fact reign exactly 40 years and it’s a historical fact and not just some literary device? Many have said yes. “It’s a literary device and whether it was ‘historically’ 40 years or not doesn’t matter, that’s not the point” – but I want to ask, why not? Why can’t it be both? Why can’t a Sovereign so arrange these men’s lives in such a way to convey a pattern that would point us to Christ?

Affirming systematics is nothing more than affirming that God has revealed a system of thought in an orderly and logical fashion. But it certainly involves narrative, story, etc. It’s story with order! Try telling a story without order…lol…you get a stupid story that nobody can make ‘sense’ of. Haha.

Also, the Bible embraces history. Adam was a real, historical person. But Adam’s life was sovereignly directed in such a way that it would be recapitulated later in the life of Israel, Christ, etc. There’s your story, your patterns, etc.

Why does it have to be one or the other?