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.
Hello Daniel,
I read the article you wrote against my blog and I allowed you to post that link on my website. I have been very busy on another book but will respond when I get time. I realize that you want to believe the Messiah and his kosher Jewish disciples ate unleavened bread at this last supper.(1)
The traditions go back 1700 years to Rome that all agree with you.(2) The main reason for this is because when Rome disconnected from any (3) Jewish influence and scripture understanding they decided the Last Supper was the Passover meal, where unleavened bread was of course required. Some who more recently have questioned this tradition have decided that it was some type of practice Passover, as if these first-century Jews didn’t understand how to do a Passover real well so they practiced the night before.(4) But those followers of the Messiah knew more about how to keep the Passover then any man alive today, they had grown up going to the Temple each year for a real Passover sacrifice, and they certainly didn’t need a practice run having the Messiah right there with them. That belief only came about from the tradition started by Rome that they were eating unleavened bread at this meal. And for the great majority of Christians today that believe this was the Passover, following Rome’s lead, one only needs to look through the first-century Jewish lens for a brief moment to realize they would not go around Jerusalem saying they all ate “bread” at what was a Passover (or even a practice run).(5) Even today you would not go into the Orthodox section of Jerusalem with a brown bag of “bread” and go to the Rabbi’s house and say “Shalom Rabbi, I have brought “bread” for us to eat at Passover.” (6) The writers of scripture understood Greek very well, and they knew the word for common daily bread (arton), and they know the Greek word for unleavened bread (azumos). (7) There is no reason they would not use one more Greek letter and use the proper Greek word, especially for the scandal it would cause had this really been the Passover, which it was not. (8) If you want to read chapter one in my book where I prove this I will add the link below. In that chapter I go into proving several points in full detail, but I’ll add just one very shortened point here. In the Hebrew scriptures God foretold that the Messiah would be betrayed by one eating his “bread” (Hebrew = lechem). This was the common daily word for bread in Hebrew as I’m sure you know. (9) So if God by his foreknowledge says they would be eating “bread” at this betrayal, and it was supposedly the Passover, wouldn’t He have used the Hebrew word for what is eaten at Passover, matzah?(10)