On the Churchs of the East Thread, Fr. Mike said

"First, we know from reading the Gospels in the original Greek that Christ used LEAVENED bread at the Last Supper."

This is the exact opposite of what I have always heard. Please Fr. Mike, could you make this case. I might try to present a counter argument, but I would like to see your evidence before I do. I am not particularily opposed to the idea, it just flies in the face of everything I have ever heard.

Thank you so much for your time.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004

Answers

bump

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

Dano,

I have seen some discussion on this that is based on the Last Supper being a preparatory meal for the Passover, not the Passover meal itself. John's gospel says the Last Supper occurred before the Passover feast. The other gospels say the same thing, but the fact can get lost to most of us Gentiles because the Jewish day starts at sunset the day we normally think of as "yesterday." This is why we can go to Mass on Saturday evening and it still counts as Sunday. At least, that's the way I understand it all. Fr. Mike or someone else will be able to explain much better than I.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 13, 2004.

"Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?" (Matt 26:17)

"On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?" (Mark 14:12)

"Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching (Luke 22:1) ... Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. (Luke 22:7)

I don't see that these passages leave any room for doubt that (1) the Last Supper was the Passover meal, and (2) that it was therefore necessarily unleavened bread they ate, in accordance with Mosaic Law ...

'They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. (Exodus 12:8)

'Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. (Exodus 12:15)

'You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance. (Exodus 12:17)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 13, 2004.

What I'm talking about is the institution narrative itself. There are two Greek words for bread...Artos (regular bread) and Azymos (unleavened bread). When the gospels say that Christ "took bread into his hands, broke it, gave it to his disciples and said..." the word used for bread is "Artos"

And that's why it's always good to read texts in their original languages and not in a translation.

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCD (cand) (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2004.

That's what I was looking for Fr. Mike! Thanks.

Now my Greek NT is at home not at work, so I will have to wait to double check it.

Waiting eagerly,

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

Father M,

I would think that your greek copy, probably being a copy of a copy of a translation back from another language into greek, may or may not be clear on this matter...

everything about Jewish belief and other passages in the bible seems to fly in the face of that ONE word from one translation... isn't it possible that one translator, or copier... whatever you prefer... looked at it and got the wrong word in place?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 13, 2004.

Paul, there's no evidence to suggest it was a copyist error as it is repeated in all the synoptic gospels. However, another solution is to understand that artos was used for many types of bread with leaven. Azymos is specifically unleavened bread. The key seems to be knowing how common was azymos...

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 13, 2004.

After a long staring match with the septuagints...I have this to share:

Deut 16:3 Are leavened and unleavened being used as modifiers for bread in the Septuagint?

Deut 16:16 Unleavened modifies feast?

Deut 16:3 Jerome renders leavened bread "bread having been leavened" in the latin vulgate, same way with unleavened bread of affliction. He translates artos as "panem", from panis - bread.

Deut 16:16 Meanwhile, Jerome renders azymos "azymorum", from azyma...so the latin also uses azyma to mean unleavened bread.

It's clear I'm guessing at greek here :) Still would this mean in Jerome's day artos just meant bread without specificity to having been leavened or not?

That gave me a headache. I need to learn greek!

Pax

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 13, 2004.

I am a little confused. What is the Day of Preparation spoken of in the Gospels? Is it the day that leaven is removed from the house and the house is prepared for Passover and the feast of unleavened bread? When does it begin and is unleavened bread necessarily eaten during the evening of this day? If the Hebrew day starts the evening of the day before we usually consider it, when is the first actual day of unleavened bread and Passover? I have attached the verses I am talking about. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.

John 13:1

1: Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

The next day, (John 18:28)

28: Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.

Later that day, (John 19:14)

14: Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your King!"

John 19:31

31: Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Matthew 26:17

17: Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?"

18: He said, "Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, `The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.'"

19: And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover.

Matthew 27:62

62: Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 13, 2004.

Anyone have a good timeline for the Hebrew celbration of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 14, 2004.

Now when the feast of unlevened bread is approaching, my Jewish friends carefully eliminate all the levened bread in their house.

It is a Jewish idea to make a 'fence' around the law. Actually stomping on the law could get you and your family, friends and tribe in deap trouble with God. So one makes sure that there is enough distance in ones actions to keep from stumbling into the error of violating the law. And to be sure, put a fence around that.. until you can not stand it.

With this in mind, it makes good sense to eliminate all levened bread. And since all good Jews of Jesus's time would be doing the same, there would be little market for levened bread arould that time. It makes a religious/economic sense that the standard bread of that day would not be the standard bread of a month before or a month past, and that evey one would know this.

So in the face of both religions practice noted up-thread, and this observation, I really do have my doubts about the translation -- it does not make sense.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.

Hi Andy!

Saint Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 17, 2004.

If we consider that every time the NT uses de Greek word ARTOS (for leavened bread, according to the explanation given above) and if it should be understood as leavened bread then we come to the conclusion that the Apostles never used UNLEAVENED BREAD and therefore the celebration of the Eucharist from that time on has departed from what the Church has always taught: that the Eucharist has to be celebrated with unleavened bread. Here are only two examples :

Acts 2,24

1 Cor 10,16

You can look for other texts and you'll find many.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.

Thanks Sean and Enrique for those insights. You both pointed out important considerations.

Vincent, thanks for that link to Summa Theologica. I should have known that Thomas Aquinas would have already thought about this! As expected, he covers this quite well. I'll have to start referring to Summa Theologics more often.

God bless!

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 17, 2004.

Why does it matter?

Whatever the case - Jesus is the fulfilment and completion of the law. Therefore we are set free from rules and regulations to Worship God in Spirit and in Truth. Alleluia!

-- Sharon (sharon@seguy.freeserve.co.uk), May 19, 2004.

what does it matter?

for curiosity's sake, for a complete visualization, for a better idea of our Jewish roots, for a better idea of why we do some things.

other that those, no, it does not matter.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), May 20, 2004.

There are distinct questions here: 1) the question of the date of the Last Supper. John does not identify the Supper with the Passover meal, but the Synoptic writer do. There is a vast pool of ink spilled over the pro's and con's of each. it is however that some of the dating references in the Synoptic tradition, esp. Lk 22:7 seem to record a dating tradition in which the LS was not a Passover meal. 2) The Acts references about the "breaking of bread" do not, I reckon, contribute much to the question of whether the bread is unleavened or not. People tend to come to these texts for proof of opinions which they already hold 3) Early Church practice is less than helpful. I think it is John O'Neill's 1995 article "Bread & Wine" in the Scottish Journal of Theology which points out that regulations insisting on the use of unleavened bread at the Eucharist date form the 9th century: not before.... 4) Arguments about translations from translations are always difficult but do raise the question why none of the LS accounts used "azumon" if this was a Passover, and since the distinction of breads was already a feature of jesus' teaching. The best that can be said is that the use of "artos" proves neither option, but is a general term. 5) We need to distinguish between event and history. My own research leads to to suggest that the Synoptic writers chose to interpret the LS as a Passover meal (a process which reaches its highpoint in Lk's two cups). All the Gospel writers, however, aressume a Passover significance, even if there is not a direct connection of the two meal types

-- Fergus King (fergusk@uspg.org.uk), June 11, 2004.

It's nice to see a timely post I can respond to! Nothing like responding to a post and noticing the last post was four years ago...

Some say leavened (Orthodox church), some say unleavened (everyone else). Some say the last supper was the passover, some say it was not. Some say, why does it matter? We are supposed to worship in spirit and in truth. I agree to this statement, however I believe it matters, because if we are doing it the wrong way, either A) we do not have the Spirit, or B) we are not in truth. God in the Old Testament was VERY particular about how He was worshiped. I cannot (and will not attempt to) speak for God, but what if God viewed the passover as a shunning of Christ and simply holding to Jewish tradition? Did not His Son rise? was Christ not the fulfillment of Judiasm, and came to 'do a new thing'?

I agree with the above that the word 'Artos' is used whenever they broke bread in the New Testament (as far as I can recall). However I also read that 'Artos' doesn't necessarily mean leavened bread. In scripture, leaven is seen as both good (the kingdom of heaven) and bad (a symbol of sin), so that offers little help. However you would think it would be recorded if leavened bread was used, as an oddity (unless the Apostles just decided not to question Jesus at this point).

I am a protestant that has been learning much about church history, which has been leading me strongly towards the Eastern Orthodox church (simply studying history alone has been quite convincing... unless of course you read history written by Protestants with an anti- catholic and anti-history agenda). I think history speaks so loudly we cannot ignore it. We protestants try to ignore 1500 years of church history and stick to 'sola scripture', or the bible alone, however we always find ourselves going back to history and culture to understand the scriptures. Not only that, but there was only 1 church for 1054 years. Then there were two churches for the next 500 years. Then Luther came along, and said "everyone can interpret scripture" and "anyone can be a priest" and lo and behold, there are now thousands of Protestant denominations. Maybe by leaning on the bible as the source instead of the church, we are putting the cart before the horse. After all, Jesus is not coming back for you and I (individual mindset so prevalent in American today), but He is coming back for the church. The concept of the 'invisible church', that is, everyone who believes basically the same thing about Jesus being Lord, is the "church", was a concept that did not need to exist until there were all these denominations, simply because its easier to say "close enough" than it is to say "Presbyterians might be wrong" or "Methodists might be wrong". So the real question is, does God care how He is worshiped?

-- Justin H (justinhonse@hotmail.com), June 13, 2004.

Sean wrote: what does it matter?

When the East and West split, anathemas were exchanged. The Latins have been more centralized than the Greeks and the anathema was withdrawn so all who report to Rome have to obey it. The Greeks never withdrew theirs so they still consider us heretics. For them to withdraw their anathemas, the Filioque problem must be rectified, then all the other issues which may seem tangential to us but are not to them must also be cleared up, in order to justify to them that we're not heretics. It's a lumpy issue and the Greeks are alot slower to move because they're more decentralized. So, it does matter to some who hold that the host must be made of leavened bread or else...anathema :(

Anyway, I think Luke 24:29-31 is worthy of note. It was the first celebration of the Eucharist after the Ressurection. Jesus broke bread and it could not have been leavened bread because it inarguably happened during the feast of the Azymes. Incidentally, after Jesus gave them the bread and they recognized him in the breaking of the bread, he vanished from their sight...he was right there in the eucharist, but they didn't know...and Jesus didn't take the cup, so I guess reception under one species(which some Greeks don't accept, I think) also is AOK.

God Bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 18, 2004.