What is True Messianic Breaking of Bread?

[Alex Tennent]

The bread used in Eastern Orthodoxy is called Artos. It is leavened. Rome used it also until it switched to unleavened at some point.

I agree Yeshua HaDerekh, and its interesting how that history played out, and how few know what really happened there.

Although Rome believed the Last Supper was the Passover they continued with their Communion ritual using regular daily leavened bread for hundreds of years, as they were not concerned with the Jewish details on what would have actually been used, had the last supper been a Passover. But around 900ad the Roman Catholic leaders started really pushing their Transubstantiation (where the ritual bread turns to Christ's human flesh in their belief). So their rulers decided at that time that since they were eating his flesh, and since he was sinless, that they should change to unleavened bread. This was decreed throughout the land, but the Eastern churches refused to go along (the Eastern churches were in a sense those who were left of those that were the original Fourteenthers). There are some very interesting quotes from that battle between the east and western church, which I have in the final chapter of my book, linked below. Then when the Protestant churches left Rome (since they had grown up in Roman churches) they continued with the Roman unleavened bread Communion ritual, but they knew something was wrong with the Transubstantiation, so they dropped that part in stages. It has always interested me that most Messianic believers, many of whom came out of the above two groups initially, did not follow the Communion ritual. Down deep in their own self they knew something was wrong with it and wanted no part of it. But they only had the English translations which seem to make it obvious that the last supper was the Passover, so they felt a Passover seder with unleavened breadwas the way to harmonize that, and to follow what the Messiah said in a way that seemed true to the Jewish history. But I believe this misses the fact that the Messiah held a regualr bread, and was not teaching a new seder but was teaching spiritual truth in parables as he so often did (see chapter two of my book in my earlier post). And here below is that final chapter of my book for anyone interested in the history that Roman Eastern churches split, and whether the Messiah was really teaching a new ritual at this meal. The second half of the chapter details those quotes from Rome against the Eastern churches, and that history etc: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_The-Ritual.pdf

 

[Alex Tennent]

i.e. 3rd hour vs. 6th hour. The answer is they were standard designations of quarter days in an era with no portable clocks. The 3rd hour abuts to the 6th hour.

Daniel no offense but you seem to create a lot of history that does not exist. With your idea, they would never know what time anyone was talking about becuase the "third hour" might mean any part of the day. The ninth hour might mean the 12th hour, the sixth hour might mean the ninth hour or the third hour...
Please consider reading that portion from my linked chaper earlier, because I connect these scriptures to the Jewish idiom, and that it was the sixth hour that the Passover had to be set aside and chosen by. So John was only speaking spiritual truth in a veiled sense, that the Messiah was the true Passover. So John worded the Greek to say "it was, as it were, the sixth hour," where the Messiah stood before Pilate with the crowd yelling crucify. Similar to when John wrote "not a bone of his was broken" where he again subtly links the Messiah to the Passover.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Shalom Alex,

My opinion is not as subjective as you suggest (ref. 1). " On the eve of the fourteenth day of Nisan men search for leaven by candlelight."
Some saved it aside and ate it until 10 or 12 the next day, but others did not. Now I have learned something from you, but only by way of investigating your claims and discovering something else. If you care to look up Exodus 29:2, 29:23, 29:32, 29:34, Lev. 7:12, Lev. 8:26, 8:31; 8:32; and Lev. 23:14 you will see evidence that ARTOS αρτος and LEHEM לחם are used independently of the word unleavened to refer to unleavened bread. You will find ARTOS used for unleavened bread several verses removed from the context that explains the bread is unleavened.

It appears that Paul is building a symbolism with "one bread", and not just the last supper, but to Exodus 29:23, "one loaf of bread, one cake of bread, one wafer..." used to consecrate the priesthood. Consecration appears to be the theme in John 17:

17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?

23 and one loaf of bread and one cake of bread made with oil, and one wafer out of the basket of unleavened bread that is before the LORD.
24 You shall put all these on the palms of Aaron and on the palms of his sons, and wave them for a wave offering before the LORD.

So indeed the ARTOS was unleavened, as would appear to be normally the case in this sort of context.

(2) Rome also agrees that Yeshua was the Messiah. Does that mean because Rome said it he is not the Messiah?

(3) Any Jewish influence? you exaggerate. Sure they disconnected most of it.

(4) A straw man, because I do not suppose it was a practice Seder. In the dispersion some had extra Seders so that they could be sure of celebrating at least one at the same time as those in Israel. These were not practice Seders. What prevents Messiah from having an extra Seder? Not much.

(5) In light of the above revelation from Exodus, assuming bread is leavened is begging the question.

(6) Another straw man argument, and also anachronistic.

(7) Begging the question, i.e. assuming what you want to prove: bread is always leavened, therefore the word bread means leavened bread was used.

(8) So why was the word unleavened not attached to bread in several uses in Exodus?

(9) I know that the Hebrew word לחם stands independently verses separated from any qualification of unleavened in Exodus. One only needs to observe it there. So to say that lehem means leavened bread or regular bread is your assumption. You seem to be appealing to modern usages. That is an anachronistic fallacy. The farther back in time you go the broader the senses of any one given term. Also the printing press and mass media have dichotomized the technical meanings of words in just about every language. There is no reason why they would not call pancakes, tortillas, cupcakes, corn chips, etc. all bread. I made the case above that the context of the last supper calls for unleavened bread.

(10) Begging the question again. And foreknowledge does not excuse the logical fallacy.

Shalom Daniel,

I appreciate your heart to dig into the scriptures as you do and all the work you have done in your books and your web site. I can honestly say I wish I had your brain and your energy. There are people in this world that have Encyclopedia brains and I wish I had one. But I know I have some skills and the Lord adds to what I have. I think part of accurately dividing the word of God is being willing to think outside the box, and not trying to argue for any certain team as it were, but allowing the scriptures to show the truth. Often this takes some debate among believers and I honestly see that as a good thing. We see the Messiah constantly doing that in the Temple and elsewhere. The Messiah also said that if any man is willing he will know the doctrine (John 7:17). So willingness to allow the Messiah to move us into all truth is so important. I don't claim by any means to have all truth, but I am certain I have uncovered a few things. And I always want to learn from others. I have a close friend who is a Messianic Rabbi and we have had some excellent debates, and I have learned things and he says he has to.
Now to respond to your points above. Those scriptures you bring are the exact same ones Rome brought to attempt to show that the bread the Messiah held was unleavened. You are correct that there are a few rare occasions where they used the Greek word for leavened bread (arton) for something that was in reality unleavened. But this was just their idiom manner of speaking at times. Like if I said "Yeshua, Daniel and I all went out after service for a coke." The reality might be that we all had Pepsi. Now if Coke was considered as evil to drink after service (lets say among all faiths) would it really make sense that I tell everyone Yeshua, Daniel and I all went out and had Coke, when it was really Pepsi? Another verse that is often used by those who want to prove its unleavened at the last supper is Deut. 16:3, where God calls the matzah at Passover "bread" of affliction. This shows that God also speaks at times in this loose idiomatic sense. The Rabbi's did not look at this and say "Oh my, I guess its fine to eat "bread" at Passover because bread means bread and its all the same." Now the Showbread were also called "bread." And this is because they were bread (not "Show-Matzah"), and they were not ever commanded to be made unleavened, they represented the twelve tribes of Israel, just like the one bread Yeshua broke represented the members in the spiritual body of Messiah. Anyway, I spend a good portion of one chapter showing the difference between when a scripture is meant as unleavened, and those rare times when artos is just being used in a looser sense. You can read that here if you like, it is titled "The Showbread, Who They Represent, Were They Unleavened, and Why it Matters": http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Course_7.pdf
God bless you brother.

 

[daq]

i.e. 3rd hour vs. 6th hour. The answer is they were standard designations of quarter days in an era with no portable clocks. The 3rd hour abuts to the 6th hour.

Herodian Sundial

.
.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Shalom Alex,

(1) I did not consult Rome, but the Scripture. Again you are equivocating that just because it agrees with Rome there must be something wrong with it. Not a valid argument.

(2) Those occasions show that the word does not mean leavened bread. It just means bread. It just so happens that Nisan 14 is one of those infrequent days of the year where the probability is that they used unleavened bread. The context points to the bread of affliction as representative of Messiah's body (broken and bruised).

(3) Apparently you did not read all my post, because I already mentioned this text.

(4) What is or is not loose or idiomatic is your own subjective opinion.

(5) Here we go begging the question again.

I notice that you are avoiding the Resurrection Sabbath. If you really want to find Rome's error, you will find it on Easter Sunday.

Those scriptures you bring are the exact same ones Rome brought to attempt to show that the bread the Messiah held was unleavened.(1) You are correct that there are a few rare occasions where they used the Greek word for leavened bread (arton) for something that was in reality unleavened.(2) But this was just their idiom manner of speaking at times. Like if I said "Yeshua, Daniel and I all went out after service for a coke." The reality might be that we all had Pepsi. Now if Coke was considered as evil to drink after service (lets say among all faiths) would it really make sense that I tell everyone Yeshua, Daniel and I all went out and had Coke, when it was really Pepsi? Another verse that is often used by those who want to prove its unleavened at the last supper is Deut. 16:3, where God calls the matzah at Passover "bread" of affliction.(3) This shows that God also speaks at times in this loose idiomatic sense.(4) The Rabbi's did not look at this and say "Oh my, I guess its fine to eat "bread" at Passover because bread means bread and its all the same." Now the Showbread were also called "bread." And this is because they were bread (5) (not "Show-Matzah"), and they were not ever commanded to be made unleavened, they represented the twelve tribes of Israel, just like the one bread Yeshua broke represented the members in the spiritual body of Messiah. Anyway, I spend a good portion of one chapter showing the difference between when a scripture is meant as unleavened, and those rare times when artos is just being used in a looser sense.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I notice that you are avoiding the Resurrection Sabbath. If you really want to find Rome's error, you will find it on Easter Sunday.

Your little figure makes absolutely no biblical sense. Yom HaBikkurim is on the morrow AFTER the Sabbath. Well, unless you follow the Rabbinic version. Your problem is we know it was Sunday morning where Yeshua said that He had not yet ascended to The Father, not on Shabbat...

 

[Grafted In]

Alex, would you please kindly address the scene at the tomb on the morning of the resurection when Jesus appeared to Mary and told her not to touch Him?
There are 2 things I'd like your opinon on. First, when the deciples looked inside the tomb they saw 2 angels, one at the head and one at the foot of the place Jesus' body was lain. Does it have a deeper meaning than most believe, that the scene very much resembles the Arc of the covenant in both the earthly and Heavenly Tabernacle and the earthly Tabernacle? If that is your understanding would you please give your thoughts.
Secondly, Jesus obviously did not assend to Heaven that day in His burial attire. My belief is that the 2 angels brought the Pure White robe from the Heavenly Tabernacle and that was what He was seen wearing when He appeared to Mary.
I also believe that He did, in fact, assend to Heaven directly after His encounter with Mary, enter into the Most Holy Place and sprinkle His blood on the Mercy seat as well as all that the blood of animals was sprinkled on in the earthly Tabernacle, and that He then returned to appear to His deciples the same day.
I would very much like to get your thoughts on all of this.

A thread about Jesus appearing to Mary was started last night, I think it was, and I posted a link to these things from a couple of years ago.
Here it is if you wish to read it.


http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-to-mary-magdalene-and-the-disciples.7873966/

Please add your thoughts. Thank you.

 

[Grafted In]

By the way, so there's no misunderstanding, I take absolutely no credit for the things I mentioned.
They were put forth by Perry Stone. I dug into his teaching and became convinced he was on to something. At this point I do not consider these ideas to be Truth from God, but I suspect it will be taken more serious as the end draws nearer.
He gives a facinating explaination for things most have little understanding of, including myself. And there seems to me to be Scriptural support for most of it, particularly the angels in the tomb and the idea that He accended to Heaven that morning to sprinkle His blood in the Holy of Holys ( Hebrews 9, particularly verse 12).

 

[Grafted In]

Ah-oh. I just discovered I was posting In the MJ forum. My appologies. Would a mod either move or delete my posts. I simply wanted Alex's opinion. My posts were even off-topic.
I will impose a 3 day ban on myself.

 

[Alex Tennent]

(4) What is or is not loose or idiomatic is your own subjective opinion.

Shalom Daniel,
So Daniel, based on your point above, do you then believe the scripture I raised (Deut. 16:3) is not loose idiomatic speech, but God was actually saying its fine to eat "bread" now at Passover, and to proclaim to all that you ate bread (lechem) at Passover?

NAS Deuteronomy 16:3 "You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it unleavened bread, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), in order that you may remember all the days of your life the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.

And as for resurrection Sabbath no Jewish sources that I know of agree with your idea that the first fruits offering was on the morning of the Saturday Sabbath. Near the time Yeshua lived the two main groups (Pharisees and Sadducees) argued on this. The Pharisees said it was on the morrow of the Sabbath of the Passover (i.e. the morrow of the 15th day high Sabbath of Passover). The Sadducees said no, that it was the Morrow of the regular Sabbath that came after the Passover sacrifice. Neither the Talmud or any other source believed it was on the morning of the Sabbath, and all believed it was on the morrow of the Sabbath, the only dispute was which Sabbath it was the morrow after. My book goes into all that, and the scriptures that clearly show that the resurrection was on the first day of the week (which we call Sunday today). Just because Rome honored the sun god with their naming of this day does not mean it was an evil day for anything to happen in first century Israel. To them it was simply the first day of the week, that began after sundown on the Sabbath. There are too many facts that support this and you need a giant sized shoe horn to try and change all the facts and scriptures. We have many writings from the battles between Rome and the Jewish Messianic followers, and the debates over doctrine that the Messianic had with Rome. But both sides in these disputes agreed on the Sunday Resurrection. Your argument that all who believed the Sabbath resurrection were killed off by Rome does not hold water. It is true that many of the Messianics were killed off but we have lots of their writings and many Gentile historians also agreed with them, and we have their writings too. Here is that chapter if you want to see how I believe is the only way to harmonize the scriptures on how the last few days occurred:

http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Template-Challenge.pdf

PS-- And the view of a Wednesday 14th day crucifixion would have a Thursday 15th day Sabbath, which would leave Friday wide open (all day) for the women to finish preparing the body of the Messiah, until waiting for the fourth day when corruption would have set in. There is no way they would all go out and play tennis or whatever and leave the Messiah's body alone without finishing the burial on Friday (i.e. if the 14th day Crucifixion had taken place on Wednesday). Its just not possible and not a viable option.

 

[Alex Tennent]

By the way, so there's no misunderstanding, I take absolutely no credit for the things I mentioned.
They were put forth by Perry Stone. I dug into his teaching and became convinced he was on to something. At this point I do not consider these ideas to be Truth from God, but I suspect it will be taken more serious as the end draws nearer.
He gives a facinating explaination for things most have little understanding of, including myself. And there seems to me to be Scriptural support for most of it, particularly the angels in the tomb and the idea that He accended to Heaven that morning to sprinkle His blood in the Holy of Holys ( Hebrews 9, particularly verse 12).

Hello Grafted in,

I appreciate your heart to seek out truth.

There are a lot of complexities in the various bible points you bring out and I can’t say that I have ever had the time to fully study those out. But let me just add a few various points that I currently believe, and have sometimes considered, that might help you in your efforts.


1. I don’t believe that Jesus had his glorified body yet, as he shows them the marks in his hands and his side a few verses later (John 20:20, 27). He would not be able to pour out God’s spirit on the believers until after he was glorified (John 7:39; 16:7), and this happened after his ascension (Acts 1:8, 9).

2. The Greek word for “touch” me not some say means “don’t be clinging to me,” (i.e. because I’m about ready to ascend). But I don’t think that is what it is meaning. I used to think this was meaning don’t touch me because Mary was in a state of being ritually unclean, but I don’t think this really fits either. According to God’s law a man was unclean if you went in a tent or tomb where a dead body was. And remember, unclean did not mean sin, it just meant one was temporarily unclean, and there were certain procedures before they could be clean again. So in effect Jesus/Yeshua would have been then unclean, because he was the dead body and was in the tomb with it. But I guess it could be argued that he arose so the dead so was not dead while he lived in the body. Might need a committee to argue that all out.

3. Scripture shows that after his death he went into Hades (the righteous portion of what is translated “hell” in some scriptures). There was the righteous side and also a section for the wicked, where we see the picture of the rich man wanting just a little moisture on his tongue from the poor righteous man, showing these two sections of Hades with a great gulf in between them (Luke 16:23-26). And the bible say that Jesus "took captivity captive" (Eph 4:8), and was in the heart of the earth telling those righteous ones from Noah’s day (and all the righteous who died before the resurrection, but were there in “prison”) the good news that they could leave the righteous part of Hades and go to heaven (1 Peter 3:19-20).

4. On another point you mentioned that Perry Stone raised, I don’t see what happened in the tomb being symbolic or connected to the holy of holies in the Temple. The Jews were taught from Moses time about the uncleaness of death, and I don’t think a burial tomb where death was would be a picture of the holy of holies. I like Perry Stone and think he brings some good things but I also think he is off on a few things, like his belief that everyone should have the “Eucharist” aka Communion ritual quite often because there is healing in eating this ritual bread. I think my book does a good job of showing that such a ritual would never have happened in first-century Israel, and that it was of Roman Catholic origen. And so we can tie our conversation back into the subject of this thread (breaking bread) I’ll add that chapter of my book that shows such a ritual would not have happened in Israel, and what the true breaking of bread was in their Jewish idiom: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Course_3.pdf

All the best to you in your search!

 

[Grafted In]

One question, Alex. What does the word Arc mean?

 

[Alex Tennent]

One question, Alex. What does the word Arc mean?

It just means a chest as far as I know. The ark in the holy of holies in the Temple had the bowls of manna and the law inside the chest, with the gold Cherubim face to face above it.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

And as for resurrection Sabbath no Jewish sources that I know of agree with your idea that the first fruits offering was on the morning of the Saturday Sabbath

The Evangelists are Jewish sources....and they all say the resurrection was on the "first of the Sabbaths" which is explained by Lev. 23:15. You have underestimated the evil of mankind and the power of tradition to deceive, yet you put your trust in it instead of noticing where it does not add up.

Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

 

[Grafted In]

Hello Grafted in

4. On another point you mentioned that Perry Stone raised, I don’t see what happened in the tomb being symbolic or connected to the holy of holies in the Temple. The Jews were taught from Moses time about the uncleaness of death, and I don’t think a burial tomb where death was would be a picture of the holy of holies.

But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
Acts 13:37. King James

 

[Alex Tennent]

The Evangelists are Jewish sources....and they all say the resurrection was on the "first of the Sabbaths" which is explained by Lev. 23:15. You have underestimated the evil of mankind and the power of tradition to deceive, yet you put your trust in it instead of noticing where it does not add up.

Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"

Daniel I promise that I do not put my trust in the evil of mankind, or in the traditions that deceive, and if you read my book you will see that scripture truth is everything and traditions mean nothing in comparison. So please don’t represent me in ways that are not true.

Yes, the gospel writers are Jewish sources, and they all disagree with your Saturday morning resurrection theory. Here is what they say, and please be sure to read my point after Luke’s verse:


NAS Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave.


NAS Mark 16:1 And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.


NAS Luke 24:1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared.


On this Luke verse (above) Daniel, how does your Saturday morning resurrection theory explain this? In other words, why would these women wait all day Friday doing nothing to finish the burial preparation for the Messiah’s body, then leave home near sunrise carrying spices as the Sabbath is coming in, and get ready to anoint the body at early dawn on the Sabbath? As you know, carrying spices on the Sabbath and preparing a body for burial during Sabbath is against God's law. Your option does not make sense on this major point. What were these ladies doing all day and night Friday, leaving the Messiah's body in the tomb alone, when any time that day would have been the perfect time to anoint the body?


NAS John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.


NAS John 20:19 When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you."
(In this verse above the Greek word trasnslated evening is Opsias, here it is used as an adjective and means late)

 

[Alex Tennent]

But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Yes, I sure agree with you there Grafted in, and that fulfilled the prophecy of David (Psalm 16:10). It's only the idea that the burial tomb was a type of the holy of holies in the Temple, I personally would have a hard time seeing that.

 

[Grafted In]

Alex, I wish we could continue this discussion, but you know how it is. People want to be offended so they can report you.
I am not welcome on this forum, though I am a member of the same body of Christ.
What a shame!!!

 

[Alex Tennent]

Alex, I wish we could continue this discussion, but you know how it is. People want to be offended so they can report you.
I am not welcome on this forum, though I am a member of the same body of Christ.
What a shame!!!

Hi Grafted in,

I'm sorry to hear that you feel you are not welcome, you are sure welcome in my book! We in the body of Christ often have different ideas and beliefs but I'm sorry to hear that anything has made you feel unwelcome, I hope I didn't say anything that came across wrong. Remember that our Lord said whoever comes to him he will in no way cast out, so you are always welcome with the true body of Christ. I hope you keep hanging around but either way I wish you all the best.

 

[Grafted In]

I'm not supposed to post on here because I'm not a MJ.