22. On the return of the remnant from Babylon to Jerusalem, why was God’s typical kingdom not reestablished, and why was the kingdom established by the Maccabean Judas Hyrcanus Aristobulus not the kingdom?

²² How long, then, would it be until the ruined kingdom would be restored and God’s kingdom would be given to the Seed of God’s woman, who has the right to it? When the remnant of repentant Jews were restored to their homeland after it had lain desolate of man and domestic beast for seventy years, the typical kingdom of God in the line of David was not reestablished. They were subject to a non-Jewish ruler, King Cyrus of Persia. They merely had a local governor who was from the royal house of David to direct their affairs. In 167 B.C. the Maccabean revolt against the Syrian king, Antíochus IV Ephíanes, took place and the Maccabees established their own government. In 104 B.C. Judas Hyrcanus Aristobulus took the title “King of the Jews.” But that was a kingdom of a Levite priest. It was not a restoration of God’s kingdom in the line of King David of the royal tribe of Judah.—Gen. 49:8-10.

23. Was the kingdom of God established after Jesus rode triumphally into Jerusalem, or after his being resurrected, or on the day of Pentecost?

²³ In the spring of 33 (A.D.), when Jesus rode triumphally on an ass into Jerusalem, as Solomon had done to his coronation many centuries before, the kingdom of God by the rightful heir of King David failed to be established anew. After Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and just before he ascended to heaven to sit down at his Father’s right hand, Jesus’ disciples plainly asked him: “Master, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” Jesus, in effect, answered them No! He said: “It does not belong to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction; but you will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:6-8) Ten days afterward, on the festival day of Pentecost, the holy spirit of God was poured out upon them and they did receive power. But the kingdom of Israel was not set up again there at Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.

(To be continued)

Why Celebrate the Lord’s Supper?

Jehovah God, through his Son, commanded Christians to celebrate the lord’s supper. When understood, the reasons why will appear to be at once simple, powerful and convincing.

IT WAS Thursday evening, April 3, 1958. At 136 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York, exactly five hundred persons packed out the Kingdom Hall, occupying not only every seat but also all the available standing room. The audience consisted of dedicated Christians and their friends who listened with keen interest to a Scriptural discourse. What was the attraction—the speaker? No, even though it did happen to be the president of the Watch Tower Society. Rather, it was the occasion, the celebration of the Lord’s supper. What is the Lord’s supper and why should it be celebrated?

The Lord’s supper is the term used to describe an arrangement that Jesus instituted on the night of his betrayal. In brief, it consists of a Scriptural discussion, the giving of thanks and the partaking of bread and wine. Some refer to it as the Eucharist, because of Jesus’ “giving thanks” on that occasion. It is also referred to as the Communion and the Mass. Doubtless, the most fitting of all names for it is “the Lord’s evening meal.”—1 Cor. 11:20.

Some professed Christians, such as the Quakers, object to this celebration, terming it a stress on “useless external things.” In support of their position they quote: “The kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking,” and, “Let no man judge you in eating and drinking.” However, an examination of the contexts of these scriptures shows that what the apostle Paul, their writer, was discussing was not at all the Lord’s evening meal but rather the restrictions of the Mosaic law. We cannot take those texts out of their setting and use them to contradict the plain words of Jesus: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”—Rom. 14:17; Col. 2:16; Luke 22:19.

Then again there are certain liberals who claim that Jesus did not intend to institute any observance. They point to the fact that the command to observe the Lord’s evening meal is found only in the writings of Luke and Paul and carp at the slight variations in the various accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. However, if we believe, as all Christians should, that the Christian Greek Scriptures are indeed the Word of God, then the account of just one writer is sufficient for our faith and we will readily understand how one account could be more complete than another. Then also we will not cavil at minor variations which but give proof that the several writers wrote independently; Matthew, incidentally, being the only eyewitness among the four.

NOT A SACRIFICE, NOT A SACRAMENT

From the foregoing it is clear that the reason for celebrating the Lord’s supper or evening meal is because Christ commanded it. But why did he? Is it because at that time the bread and wine literally become his flesh and blood, a change termed “transubstantiation”? And is Jesus therefore actually sacrificed for our sins each time the Lord’s supper is celebrated? That is the claim of some who hold that this change was the greatest of all miracles that Jesus performed. But how could that be when Jesus still had his own flesh and blood at the time he said: “Take this; this is my body. . . . This is my blood”? And if this is the greatest of all of Jesus’ miracles, is it not passing strange that no Bible writer calls attention to this stupendous miracle, if miracle it is?—Mark 14:22, 23, Knox.

In fact, Roman Catholic translator Knox, while using “is” in connection with the Lord’s evening meal, having Jesus say, ‘This is my body. This is my blood,’ uses the words “stands for” in a similar case in the illustration of the sower: “The grain that fell in good soil stands for those who hear the word,” etc. If Jesus used “is” in the sense of “stands for” in the parable of the sower, is it not more reasonable to conclude that he meant the same regarding the bread and wine than to insist that he performed his most notable miracle at that time? Surely! And that is why such translations as those of Moffatt, Williams and the New World Translation read, “this means” or “this represents my body.”—Luke 8:15.

As for the Lord’s supper being a bloodless repetition of Christ’s sacrifice, first of all let it be noted that such a sacrifice could not take away sins, for we read that “unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” That is why God forbade the Israelites to eat blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the