Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Who is correct? St.Luke or St.Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Eldo E V
    In St.Luke Ch 22:17 says Jesus first took the cup of vine where as St.Matthew Ch 26:26 says Jesus first took the bread. And the remembrance of it in our HOLY
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In St.Luke Ch 22:17 says Jesus first took the cup of vine where as
      St.Matthew Ch 26:26 says Jesus first took the bread. And the
      remembrance of it in our HOLY Qurbano, the bread is raised first. Is
      it means St. Luke is wrong?

      =========================================================
      From the desk of the Moderator:

      Please sign your messages with member ID. If not having a member ID, please send your details including contact number to moderators
      (SOCM-FORUM-owner@yahoogroups.com)and obtain a member ID before posting any more messages in SOCM. Thank you for your cooperation
    • Varkey Titus
      Dear Eldo, Why there is a doubt about the order given by St. Luke? Please read the verses of St.Luke Ch. 22: 19 & 20 as well. The order of breaking bread
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Eldo,

        Why there is a doubt about the order given by St. Luke? Please read the verses of St.Luke Ch. 22: 19 & 20 as well. The order of breaking bread first and then taking the cup are given there, as it is described in the books of St. Mathew & St. Mark. St. Luke is not wrong in giving the order,but what written in Verse 17 may be another incident, which could be like 'starting with an appetizer in a party'!!!! Sorry, this is my interpretation, may be someone more knowledgeable can give detailed clarifications.

        St. Mathew Ch.26:
        -----------------
        26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake
        it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

        27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
        Drink ye all of it;

        28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many
        for the remission of sins.

        St. Mark Ch.14:
        ----------------
        22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it,
        and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

        23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to
        them: and they all drank of it.

        24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which
        is shed for many.

        St. Luke Ch. 22:
        ----------------
        17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and
        divide it among yourselves:

        18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,
        until the kingdom of God shall come.

        19And he 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.

        20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new
        testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

        Regards

        Varkey Titus
        Member Id No: 1024

        --- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Eldo E V wrote:
        >
        > In St.Luke Ch 22:17 says Jesus first took the cup of vine where as
        > St.Matthew Ch 26:26 says Jesus first took the bread. And the
        > remembrance of it in our HOLY Qurbano, the bread is raised first. Is
        > it means St. Luke is wrong?
        >
      • Shinu Jesus Abraham
        Greetings to All Dear Mr. Eldo, Please check the below two verses from two gospels - Gospel of St. Mathew Chapter 20:20-21 - Then came to him the mother of
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 9, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Greetings to All

          Dear Mr. Eldo, Please check the below two verses from two gospels -

          Gospel of St. Mathew Chapter 20:20-21 - Then came to him the mother
          of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a
          certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She
          saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy
          right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
          Gospel of St. Mark Chapter 10: 35-37 - Then James and John, the sons
          of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do
          for us whatever we ask." "What do you want me to do for you?" he
          asked. They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other
          at your left in your glory."

          So who actually asked Jesus – Mother or the sons?

          The logical possible reason for these differences can be seen below

          Gospel of St. Luke Chapter 1: 1-4 - Forasmuch as many have taken in
          hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are
          most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us,
          which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the
          word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of
          all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most
          excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those
          things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

          So we have to accept that Bible didn't come from God directly but
          written by his disciples not live, but many decades later after all
          the incidences, when they understood the importance to handing over
          to generations the true messages, even seeing false teachings. We
          should know that the church was formed first and then came Bible and
          Canons and hence we proudly say we are members of that Syrian
          Orthodox Church. We should not give undue importance to these
          differences of words or sentences in the Bible but for the main
          message.

          The above is only summarized thoughts (in my own translation/words
          which I hope is appropriate) from a very interesting article by
          Dr.Geevarghese Mor Coorilose from "Sathya Viswasa Padanagal" co-
          authored with respected Moolayil Achen.

          Your brother in Christ

          Shinu Jesus Abraham
          Member ID # 2908

          --- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Eldo E V wrote:
          >
          > In St.Luke Ch 22:17 says Jesus first took the cup of vine where as
          > St.Matthew Ch 26:26 says Jesus first took the bread. And the
          > remembrance of it in our HOLY Qurbano, the bread is raised first.
          Is
          > it means St. Luke is wrong?
          >
        • Eldo E.V.
          DEAR VARKEY TITUS THANK U FOR UR REPLAY.I also think ST.Matthew may be correct because he was witnessed the last supepr where as St. Luke was written the
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 10, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            DEAR VARKEY TITUS

            THANK U FOR UR REPLAY.I also think ST.Matthew may be correct because he was
            witnessed the last supepr where as St. Luke was written the gospel what he
            heard from others,but St. Luke was a doctor on that time,he may be symbolizing
            the event by giving this that blood is life and with out blood body is
            dead,so taking life (wine) first may be one way correct.


            On 10/8/07, VarkeyTitus <VarkeyTitus> wrote:
            >
            > Dear Eldo,
            >
            > Why there is a doubt about the order given by St. Luke? Please read the
            > verses of St.Luke Ch. 22: 19 & 20 as well. The order of breaking bread
            > first and then taking the cup are given there, as it is described in the
            > books of St. Mathew & St. Mark.

            =========================================================
            From the desk of the Moderator:

            Please sign your messages with member ID. If not having a member ID, please send your details including contact number to moderators
            (SOCM-FORUM-owner@yahoogroups.com)and obtain a member ID before posting any more messages in SOCM. Thank you for your cooperation
          • Prof V P George
            Dear Eldo, Besides St Mark, St Paul also supports St Matthew, Please read I Cori. 11: 23-26 Prof V P George
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 11, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Eldo,

              Besides St Mark, St Paul also supports St Matthew,
              Please read I Cori. 11: 23-26

              Prof V P George
              =========================================================
              From the desk of the Moderator:

              Please sign your messages with member ID. If not having a member ID, please send your details including contact number to moderators
              (SOCM-FORUM-owner@yahoogroups.com)and obtain a member ID before posting any more messages in SOCM. Thank you for your cooperation
            • Eldo E V
              Dear Mr,Shinu, I do agree with u,but when we think of last spper it is the most important event for we syrian xians,it is the establish ment of holy mass and
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 11, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Mr,Shinu,

                I do agree with u,but when we think of last spper it is the
                most important event for we syrian xians,it is the establish ment of holy mass and we take the bread and wine as the the true flesh and blood of jesus. and part with him.in such an important occasion, the verses and wrongly written or is it a mistake of the transalater from the original manuscript.and when i studied there are more than 2000 contraversial verses has been noticed,such an important book how this much error came??

                Eldo E V


                On 10/10/07, ShinuJesusAbraham <ShinuJesusAbraham> wrote:
                >
                > Greetings to All
                >
                > Dear Mr. Eldo, Please check the below two verses from two gospels -
                >
                > Gospel of St. Mathew Chapter 20:20-21 - Then came to him the mother
                > of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a
                > certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She
                > saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy
                > right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
                > Gospel of St. Mark Chapter 10: 35-37 - Then James and John, the sons
                > of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do
                > for us whatever we ask." "What do you want me to do for you?" he
                > asked. They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other
                > at your left in your glory."
              • Abraham Varghese
                22.17-18 ‘And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks (eucharistesas), he said, “Take this, and divide it (share it) among yourselves, for I say to
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 14, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  22.17-18 ‘And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks (eucharistesas), he said, “Take this, and divide it (share it) among yourselves, for I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingly Rule of God shall come.”

                  During the Passover feast it was customary for four cups of wine to be drunk. This was therefore probably the first cup, the initial opening of the feast, although it may have been the second. And Luke probably has the saying that follows it in the right place. It may be seen as quite likely that Jesus made some poignant comment as each cup was drunk. It was after all a time of huge significance. Luke then draws on His two main emphases, the one to do with the soon coming and final certainty of the Kingly Rule of God which will not involve His eating and drinking, and the one which spoke of the giving of His body and of the new covenant sealed in blood, at which there would be eating and drinking, for He wants to bring out both stresses individually. Matthew and Mark meanwhile deliberately limit mention of the drinking of wine to one cup so as to concentrate the minds of their readers on the cup later used in Communion at the Lord’s Table. They therefore, in order to
                  introduce these words, had to tack them rather uncomfortably onto the words of institution which are similar to those given below, because while they did not wish to omit them altogether, their emphasis was on the significance of the Lord’s Supper as continually celebrated by the church. They were combining the two aspects into one for that purpose.

                  ‘Divide it among yourselves.’ It was normal at the Passover for the presiding person to drink first and then for the cup to be passed round. So this probably means that Jesus had taken His first drink and was now offering it to them, so that each might drink from the cup. It may, however, signify that Jesus did not drink of it Himself, although in our view this seems unlikely in view of His statement that He had so desired to share this meal with them. Indeed it would mar the sense of oneness and unity. But the principle point here is that the wine at this feast, and possibly in this cup, would be the last wine He would taste, until the coming of the Kingly Rule of God that lay beyond it (apart from the cup of suffering - verse 42). It was an indication of how close was the coming of the Kingly Rule of God, a coming which would be especially revealed by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

                  The description of this wine as His last taste before the coming of the Kingly Rule of God was an assertion both of His certain approaching death, and of the certainty of the coming of the Kingly Rule of God. It was also the guarantee of His resurrection in preparation for it (for without bodily resurrection He would not otherwise be able to drink of it again). So it was both an indication of His coming death and a positive guarantee of His glorious coming victory and of the ‘good times’ that would one day come. It was an assurance that in spite of what was to happen, the Kingly Rule of God would become a reality. It would begin once He was taken up and enthroned, and would then continue for ever, and they could all therefore carry with them this certainty, that they would once more ‘sup together’ and ‘drink wine’ with Him under His Father’s Kingly Rule (both on earth and in Heaven, compare Isaiah 25.6-8. See also Luke 12.37; 14.24).

                  As already mentioned there are two main views about what He means here, whether He means that they will once more eat and drink with Him in spiritual fellowship around the Lord’s Table, or whether it refers to His future eating and drinking in the eternal kingdom. We favour the first, firstly because otherwise there is a sad lack of reference to the period that will come between His enthronement and His coming again, and secondly because otherwise it would indicate that He was telling them to seek humility and glory at the same time, an unlikely possibility when it was spoken to men who wrongly had their minds fixed on the highest place.

                  In our view we must see His not eating and drinking as a symbol of His dedicating Himself to dying on the cross (compare Numbers 6.3), and of His priesthood in offering Himself on it (Leviticus 10.8), as described more fully in Hebrews 9.11-14.

                  But those who see it as referring to the coming of the everlasting Kingdom see it as signifying that the reason why He would not drink was because His work would not be done until all was accomplished. Cessation from the drinking of wine indicated to a Jew either the intention of entering on priestly ministry (Leviticus 10.8) or the intention to take a sacred vow (Numbers 6.3). It was a symbol of those especially dedicated to a sacred task (1.15). We are reminded here that, in Hebrews, Jesus’ future time is seen as being utilised in His ever living to make intercession for us as our great High Priest (Hebrews 7.25). No priest entering on his ministry was to drink wine. Thus Jesus may here be stressing the total dedication of Himself to the saving task that lies ahead.

                  ‘Eucharistesas (when He had given thanks).’ All the cups would be blessed during the Passover so that this does not identify which cup it was. The verb is also used by Luke of the bread. The use of this verb without an object is typically Jewish.

                  22.19-20 ‘And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me.” And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”

                  And then Jesus came to the second part of what He wanted to convey to His disciples from the Passover feast. For in one sense in taking the Passover bread and breaking it before passing it to them He was treating it like a regular meal (usually the blessing came after the passing out of the Passover bread). He was indicating that what He was doing had a special purpose connected with Himself, that the blessing would flow out from Himself. It was a reminder of the feeding of the multitude (9.16-17), and a guarantee that He would feed them in the days to come (24.30-31; John 6.53-58). He wanted them to see in this bread His body given for them on which they could feed as they continually came to Him and believed on Him. He wanted them to see Him as the One Who could feed their souls and give them continuingly abundant life (John 10.10).

                  He no doubt had in mind His words in John 6.35, ‘I am the bread of life (which had come down from Heaven and gives life to the world - verse 33), he who comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst’. And His later words, ‘I am the living bread who came down from Heaven. If anyone 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’ (John 6.51). Thus in speaking of the giving of His body He was conveying the fact that through His death He was offering them life, eternal life (John 4.10-14) and that they would enjoy that life as they kept on coming to Him and kept on believing in Him. This was no offer of a semi-magical, mystical method of conveying something inaptly called ‘grace’, but an offer of a living and continual personal relationship with Himself, an abiding in the vine (John 15.1-6).

                  We must remember that eating flesh and drinking blood was a vivid Old Testament way of describing the killing of people. In the Old Testament, when the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psalm 14.4; 53.4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people’ (Micah 3.3), both were indicating the actions of those who were doing great harm to them, including slaughtering them. To eat flesh is therefore to partake in the benefits resulting from the suffering of another.

                  By eating the bread they would certainly not be indicating that they themselves would kill Him, at least not directly (although their sins would kill Him), but by their act they were equally certainly indicating their need to partake of His suffering, to receive benefit through His suffering, and that it was their sins which were responsible for His death. They were partaking in His death. Others would kill Him, what they would do was benefit through His death and become a part of it (see John 6.54). Thus this was not meant in any quasi-magical sense. It was to be a spiritual act. The bread could not be His body, even by a miracle, for He was Himself at that time there in His body (so those who try to make it more have to call it a ‘mystery’, which in this case means something that not only defies common sense and logic, which might be possible, but is totally self-contradictory, which is not possible. Even the greatest of miracles could not make a piece of bread eaten at a
                  table the same as a human body present there alive at the same table!). In sensible interpretation it had to mean ‘this represents my body’ (compare the use of ‘is’ in Luke 8.11; Galatians 4.24; Revelation 1.20) just as the bread at the Passover represented the bread of affliction.

                  When eating the Passover bread the Jews saw themselves as partaking in the sufferings of their ancestors. In a sense they actually saw themselves as one with them in corporate unity. Thus they enjoyed a genuine spiritual experience of oneness with their deliverance (although the bread remained the same). In the same way when Christians eat of this bread they see themselves as partaking in the death of Christ, as having been with Him on the cross (Galatians 2.20). So by recognising and acknowledging their close participation with Him in His death by faith they recognise that through it they have received eternal life. But no further lamb is slain or is needed. No further offering is made, or needs to be made. Nothing needs to be done to the bread. He is the one sacrifice for sin for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2.2; Hebrews 10.10, 14; John 4.42; 1 John 4.14). They rather recognise that His offering of Himself once for all (Hebrews 9.28) is something that they
                  continually participate in, and that they participate by constantly coming to Him and believing in Him (John 6.35). Thus do they eat of His flesh and drink of His blood by benefiting through His death (John 6.53-56), just as in the Old Testament men ‘ate flesh’ and ‘drank blood’ when they benefited by their deaths, and just as the Jews became partakers in the blood of the prophets by consenting to their deaths (Matthew 23.30).

                  ‘This do in remembrance of Me.’ By these words He was also setting up a means of remembrance and continual participation in what He was to do for them. That was what the Passover had always been to the Jews. As they participated in it they felt that once again they were back in Egypt and God was coming down to deliver them. They recognised that once again they were His people, awaiting His powerful working. They felt as though they were being delivered again. When they ate the bread they said, ‘This is the bread of affliction that we ate in Egypt’. And they really felt that it was, for the ‘we’ represented the whole body of Israel past and present. They felt as though they were there once again, at one with their forefathers, that they were a continuation of their forefathers. It was not just a memorial but a ‘remembrance’ (difference ours, the Greek word could mean either) in which they were taken back in time and participated again with their ancestors of old in the
                  mighty working of God. And it was all with the hope that one day it would happen again and introduce God’s kingly rule.

                  In the same way when the disciples, and those who came to believe on Him through their words, took bread in this way and ate it, they were to feel that they were once again walking with Jesus and supping with Him. They were to feel as though they too were entering personally into His brokenness on the cross. They were being crucified with Him (Galatians 2.20). And they were then to sense that they were receiving new life from Him as the branch receives it from its oneness with the vine (John 15.1-6), and dying and rising again with Him (Romans 6.4; Galatians 2.20; Ephesians 2.1-6). And if their hearts were rightly disposed towards Him, that is what would happen. And they were to see that they were renewing their covenant with Him, a covenant sealed by His blood, that guaranteed their position before the Father as His children (2 Corinthians 6.16-18). This last idea of the covenant is central to the Lord’s Supper. It is to be more than a memorial, it is to be a personal
                  remembrance, a full participation in Him through the Spirit, and a recommitment to His covenant through which full salvation has come. But there would be nothing mysterious about the bread. The bread would not change either physically or spiritually (any more than the Passover bread did). It would rather be the point of contact through which they came in touch with the crucified and living Christ, coming to Him and believing on Him continually, enjoying His presence among them (Matthew 18.20; 28.20) and thus enjoying life through His name.

                  We should note that Jesus said ‘do this’ not ‘offer this’. It was an act of remembrance not an offering. The offering was of Jesus, made once and for all on the cross. The ‘doing’ of this was a remembrance of that offering. The wine did not replace His sacrifice or even mime it. It was a memorial of the blood that had been shed.

                  It is difficult to overstress the significance of what this change to the Passover ritual meant. Consider the extraordinary fact. Here Jesus was taking over the Passover, as He had taken over the Sabbath (6.5), and was applying it to Himself. No ordinary prophet would ever have dared to do this. Humanly speaking it was outrageous, unless the One Who did it was God Himself (which is why Jesus made this crystal clear at this time - John 14.6-9). For it was to make out that what He was about to do was as great, if not greater, than what God, their Almighty Lord, had done at the Passover. It was to supplant the God-ordained Passover. It was replacing the Passover by the new deliverance being wrought by Him through the cross. In His death and resurrection it would be He Who would ‘pass over’ His people, protecting them from the wrath to come, and making available for them the forgiveness of sins (24.46-47). It was declaring that in Him was fulfilled all that the Passover had
                  meant to Israel, and more. Here was God’s final and full act of deliverance for all who would shelter beneath His blood. It was the fulfilment of all that the Passover had meant, and to which the Passover had pointed.

                  ‘And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.” ’ And in the same way, when He took what was probably the third cup, (they were all cups of blessing, but this was especially thought of as the cup of blessing), to be taken after eating the Passover meal, He told them that it was the symbol of the new covenant in His blood, a covenant sealed through the death of the Victim, and by participation in the Victim. This took their minds back to the days at Mount Sinai when the covenant had been offered and the people of God had accepted it and had sealed it with the shedding of blood, the blood of His covenant, ‘the blood of the covenant that He has made with you’ (Exodus 24.8). Then animals had been offered in substitution and representation, and the blood had been sprinkled on the people. Here then also was the sealing of a covenant in blood, but this time it was in His blood, of which they in
                  symbol ‘drank’ by receiving the wine as they responded spiritually to Him in dependence on His sacrifice. And the covenant was the new covenant by which God guaranteed to do a transforming work in their hearts and lives (Jeremiah 31.31-34; Hebrews 8.8-13), bringing them full forgiveness of sins (24.46-47; Acts 26.18) and inheritance among those who were made holy in Him (Acts 26.18).

                  Thus when they drank wine in the future (or when they participated in the equivalent of the Passover in the future) they were to see in it a remembrance of His death. The redness of the wine would remind them of His blood shed for them. The drinking of the wine would remind them that they partook in the benefits of His death. Just as their fathers had partaken of the blood of the prophets by participating in killing them (Matthew 23.30), so they partook of the blood of Jesus because they were participating in His death and receiving forgiveness for their sins (24.47; 1 John 1.7), the very sins which had brought about His crucifixion and were therefore responsible for His death. For the cup of the new covenant in His blood was ‘poured out for them’ (so the Greek), as He was, like the Servant of the Lord described of old (Isaiah 53.12), numbered with the transgressors (verse 37). Thus by coming to Him and believing in Him through participation in the bread and the wine they
                  would be continually enjoying forgiveness and eternal life in His name. They would be abiding in Him (John 6.53-56). They would be guaranteeing, as long as their inward hearts were in parallel with their outward action, their participation in the new covenant in His blood.

                  Once again He was taking a familiar Old Testament metaphor. In Zechariah 9.15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood (the blood of their enemies) like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies. And David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Furthermore Isaiah brought both metaphors of eating and drinking together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isaiah 49.26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death.

                  So as we partake of the Lord’s Supper we are indicating that, as David would have done if he had drunk the water brought to him by those who loved him, we are seeking to benefit by His sacrifice of Himself. We are partaking in His death. We are making His death our own, so that we might enjoy His life springing up within us

                  Thanks & regds

                  Abraham Varghese
                  ID 3298

                  "God is my saviour; i will trust him and not be afraid" Isaiah 12:2
                • Eldo E V
                  Dear abraham Varghese, Thank u for ur detailed message in the subject. There are so many contradectory statements in bible but imortant subjects are not
                  Message 8 of 8 , Oct 16, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear abraham Varghese,

                    Thank u for ur detailed message in the subject. There are so many contradectory statements in bible but imortant subjects are not clear.any way with lot of response i conclude this subject.

                    I am happy to see that a clarifications from H G Divannasious thirumeni is also came. It is a positive sign that our Bishops are joining in this forum.

                    Our Lord Jesus be with u all.
                    Thank
                    Eldo E V
                    Bangalore.

                    --- In SOCM-FORUM@yahoogroups.com, Abraham Varghese wrote:
                    > 22.17-18 `And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks
                    (eucharistesas), he said, "Take this, and divide it (share it) among
                    yourselves, for I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of the
                    fruit of the vine, until the Kingly Rule of God shall come."
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.