What is True Messianic Breaking of Bread?

[visionary]

Shewbread represents the twelve tribes

 

[visionary]

Shewbread represents the twelve tribes

Which is also befitting... since it is leavened.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Which is also befitting... since it is leavened.

Yes, and along those same lines, you can see how the apostles understood the Messiah's last supper parables, and that the last supper pieces of the one leavened bread represent us, the members of his spiritual body (we who are not yet unleavened, yet we are accepted before God as if we were unleavened, since we are in the Messiah and we walk in a cleansed state legally because of him). Similar to the twelve Showbread (breads of the presence) that were abiding in His presence in the holy place of the Temple, but at that time they could not go beyond the veil, but for us the veil was torn in half, so we can go in, praise be to His name!

 

[visionary]

Yes, and along those same lines, you can see how the apostles understood the Messiah's last supper parables, and that the last supper pieces of the one leavened bread represent us, the members of his spiritual body (we who are not yet unleavened, yet we are accepted before God as if we were unleavened, since we are in the Messiah and we walk in a cleansed state legally because of him). Similar to the twelve Showbread (breads of the presence) that were abiding in His presence in the holy place of the Temple, but at that time they could not go beyond the veil, but for us the veil was torn in half, so we can go in, praise be to His name!

12 loaves of shewbread under the light of the Menorah.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Yes, and along those same lines, you can see how the apostles understood the Messiah's last supper parables, and that the last supper pieces of the one leavened bread represent us, the members of his spiritual body (we who are not yet unleavened, yet we are accepted before God as if we were unleavened, since we are in the Messiah and we walk in a cleansed state legally because of him). Similar to the twelve Showbread (breads of the presence) that were abiding in His presence in the holy place of the Temple, but at that time they could not go beyond the veil, but for us the veil was torn in half, so we can go in, praise be to His name!

12 loaves of shewbread under the light of the Menorah.

Great point Visionary.

 

[AbbaLove]

If you or anyone would be interested to see the proof I lay out for the late Wednesday last supper, Thursday crucifixion, and Sunday resurrection they can read that chapter here: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Template-Challenge.pdf

I also show there what I believe is the proof of why the other options do not fit the template for that Jewish feast, nor do they fit the scriptures. All the best Hank and thank you.

Does Jewish culture suggest that the "last supper" took place before dusk, before the beginning of the 5th day of the week, Thursday that you believe is Nisan 14. Could be mistaken, but didn't you agree that the "last supper" and the crucifixion both occurred on Nisan 14, which you believe occurred on the 5th day of the week, Thursday?

Scripture implies that preparations for the "last supper" took place on the afternoon of Nisan 13. Why do believe the actual 'last supper" in which Yeshua breaks bread and drinks the cup of wine also took place on Nisan 13, before dusk and the beginning of Nisan 14.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Does Jewish culture suggest that the "last supper" took place before dusk, before the beginning of the 5th day of the week, Thursday that you believe is Nisan 14. Could be mistaken, but didn't you agree that the "last supper" and the crucifixion both occurred on Nisan 14, which you believe occurred on the 5th day of the week, Thursday?

Scripture implies that preparations for the "last supper" took place on the afternoon of Nisan 13. Why do believe the actual 'last supper" in which Yeshua breaks bread and drinks the cup of wine also took place on Nisan 13, before dusk and the beginning of Nisan 14.

Hello AbbaLove, I don't really have a fixed belief that the last supper was either just before sundown (as the 13th day ended) or if it was after sunset (then into the 14th day). I don't think there are any real doctrinal points that matter either way, as far as that goes. Matthew 26:20 says it was evening when he arrived with the twelve, but the Greek word translated evening by many translations is really the Greek word for "late," and I think it is possible to also mean late in their day (still before sundown). I think Luke 22:14 is interesting because to me it implies the 14th and final day for Yesua had begun (i.e. sundown) because it says "the hour had come." But as I say, I don't at this time have a super set belief on that, and don't see that it matters. I don't believe there was any set time for them to eat, and if anyone got home late on any day they would just eat then, there was no law excepting the Sabbath laws.

I do know that those who want Jesus to some eat a Passover that night (and also be the Passover the next day) want it to be after sundown, thinking that as the 14th day began a Passover sacrifice would qualify for a 14th day legal Passover (which it would not, as there would still be leaven in the land, therefore Passovers were not legal until noon on the 14th day). But yes, I do believe that for sure the crucifixion was on the fifth day (Thursday), which was the 14th day that year. That is the only way to have Sunday be the "third day since these things happened," where "these things" were listed as the arrest and crucifixion (Luke 24).

And as for the preparations on the 13th day for Passover, I would agree that it was that day when Yeshua sent them forth saying "make ready/prepare" the Passover, but it is also true that the 14th day was called "the preparation day" because it was the day before the 15th day Sabbath. So it gets a little tricky, and I go through it on pages 413-417 of the book (in the "Three Greek Keys..." chapter), but the Greek word for "Prepared" in Mark 14:16 (also Luke 22:8, etc) is a different word than the Greek word used for a preparation day (such as occurred before every Sabbath or Festival Sabbath day). The four gospels all agree that the crucifixion day was the "preparation day" (see also pages 443-446, and the verses Matthew 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42), and the Greek word used for that is a very specific Greek word, paraskeuy.

 

[AbbaLove]

But yes, I do believe that for sure the crucifixion was on the fifth day (Thursday), which was the 14th day that year. That is the only way to have Sunday be the "third day since these things happened," where "these things" were listed as the arrest and crucifixion (Luke 24).

Thursday ~ placed in tomb before sunset
Friday 24 hrs ~ 1st 12 hr night, 1st 12 hr day
Saturday 48 hrs ~ 2nd 12 hr night, 2nd 12 hr day
Sunday 12 hrs ~ 3rd 12 hr night just before or at the break of daylight.

Wednesday ~ placed in the tomb before sunset
Thursday 24 hrs elapsed time ~ 1st 12 hr night, 1st 12 hr day
Friday 48 hrs elapsed time ~ 2nd 12 hr night, 2nd 12 hr day
Saturday 72 hrs elapsed time ~ 3rd 12 hr night, 3rd 12 hr day
Sunday ~ appeared to Mary just before or at the break of daylight (3½ days)

Those MJs holding to Nisan 14 occurring on 4th day of the week (Wednesday) might list the following reasons:

1. They like the idea of Yeshua arising at the end of the Sabbath "on the third day" while not appearing to Mary until several hours into the first day of the week. Possibly while the first rays of sunshine shone on the Temple.
2. Their accounting of days and night satisfies the scripture “three days and three nights.”
3. This timeline still satisfies the “third day since these things happened” assuming Yeshua arose toward the end of the 7th day, just as he was placed in the tomb toward the end of the 4th day.
4. Some would contend that Mark 8:31 (after three days) can be interpreted that Yeshua waited until "after three days" before making His appearance (close to three and one half days later).
5. They would also contend that a 5th day, Thursday crucifixion is three 12 hr nights, but ONLY two 12 hr days.

In a previous post you mentioned that the RCC mistranslated certain passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Is it possible that the RCC translation of “three days and three nights” was actually “three nights and three days,” that they either intentionally or unintentionally mistranslated Yeshua’s words based on their reckoning of a western day? Is this not only possible, but likely when considering the following comments from your previous posts?

The only reason this concept of an instructional Seder came about is because bible commentators had to have some way to explain the English translations (like Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7) which seem to make it obvious that the last supper was the Passover. Since the translators believed Rome’s tradition was correct, that it was the Passover, they therefore translated these few verses according to what they thought was truth.

It is the translators who accidentally mistranslated those verses based on what they were sure had happened. Once the Jewish disconnect happened, Rome was not really big on bible facts, and the English translations came 1300 years or so after the Jewish disconnect took place (see Fourteenthers). So by this time the RCC tradition was seen as unquestioned fact.

Messianics might agree to disagree that there are more important issues than whether or not Nisan 14 occurred on the fourth day or the fifth day of the week. However, that said, do you believe that the use of “synecdoche" reasoning by the RCC to justify a “Good Friday” crucifixion is a valid use/example of a "part of a whole" ?​

 

[visionary]

Greek word for ordinary leavened bread is (Strong’s 740) used at least 72 times. In the “last supper” accounts in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22 and Luke 22:19, Yeshua took bread , blessed it, broke it and gave it to the disciples. Yeshua compared Himself to leavened bread in John 6:35 where He called Himself the “bread of life”. I tried to get the Greek word to show up but it didn't... but it is leavened in all cases.

I know we have been trying to make the connection with the unleavened bread, the unleavened bread feast and Yeshua's body. We have accepted a leavening is not good. Sin is represented by leavening the whole loaf. It may be that it is the age of the leavening agent that is "old"

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul draws a parallel between the spiritual growth of a believer and the bread making process. Paul points out that the death of Yeshua has cleansed us of the old leaven (1Cor 5:7) and given us the opportunity of a new beginning. Each year the cleansing of leaven out of the home in all its forms is a strong tradition. But it also has its benefits back then.

Bread, throughout most of history, was made by a process that is known as “sour dough”. A small amount of leavened dough from the previous batch is mixed into the new batch. Sometimes the starter could live on (it contains a living organism) for many years. The idea is to get back to the basic pure ingredients (sincerity and truth) and to start again.

The first thing you do to a new batch of dough is to mix in the leaven starter. If people thought their neighbor had better tasting bread, they would request a piece of that neighbor’s starter. Yeshua is our best neighbor to be asking for a fresh starter. The starter contains life and under its influence would reproduce (with the proper conditions and time) a product identical to the original loaf the starter came from (if the ingredients were the same).

Another problem people have with sour dough is the care that had to be taken to ensure that the starter would remain alive and active. The bread maker realized if the starter was not kept in a good environment, the life in the living bread (the starter), was in danger of dying. If the all-important starter died, due to the baker’s negligence in the care that was taken of the starter, big trouble would be the result. I know, I have failed to keep it alive. The bread would be lifeless and flat. The process would never complete itself, and the bread would remain in an unfinished state. The bread would not rise with that delightful texture and taste that we have all grown to love.

I don't know where this is leading but I thought I would share my "starter" with you.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Thursday ~ placed in tomb before sunset
Friday 24 hrs ~ 1st 12 hr night, 1st 12 hr day
Saturday 48 hrs ~ 2nd 12 hr night, 2nd 12 hr day
Sunday 12 hrs ~ 3rd 12 hr night just before or at the break of daylight.

Wednesday ~ placed in the tomb before sunset
Thursday 24 hrs elapsed time ~ 1st 12 hr night, 1st 12 hr day
Friday 48 hrs elapsed time ~ 2nd 12 hr night, 2nd 12 hr day
Saturday 72 hrs elapsed time ~ 3rd 12 hr night, 3rd 12 hr day
Sunday ~ appeared to Mary just before or at the break of daylight (3½ days)

Those MJs holding to Nisan 14 occurring on 4th day of the week (Wednesday) might list the following reasons:

1. They like the idea of Yeshua arising at the end of the Sabbath "on the third day" while not appearing to Mary until several hours into the first day of the week. Possibly while the first rays of sunshine shone on the Temple.
2. Their accounting of days and night satisfies the scripture “three days and three nights.”
3. This timeline still satisfies the “third day since these things happened” assuming Yeshua arose toward the end of the 7th day, just as he was placed in the tomb toward the end of the 4th day.
4. Some would contend that Mark 8:31 (after three days) can be interpreted that Yeshua waited until "after three days" before making His appearance (close to three and one half days later).
5. They would also contend that a 5th day, Thursday crucifixion is three 12 hr nights, but ONLY two 12 hr days.

In a previous post you mentioned that the RCC mistranslated certain passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Is it possible that the RCC translation of “three days and three nights” was actually “three nights and three days,” that they either intentionally or unintentionally mistranslated Yeshua’s words based on their reckoning of a western day? Is this not only possible, but likely when considering the following comments from your previous posts?



Messianics might agree to disagree that there are more important issues than whether or not Nisan 14 occurred on the fourth day or the fifth day of the week. However, that said, do you believe that the use of “synecdoche" reasoning by the RCC to justify a “Good Friday” crucifixion is a valid use/example of a "part of a whole" ?​

AbbaLove, I always appreciate the way you bring things. Whether you agree or not you make your points in a good spirit and I really appreciate that. After all, we all only want the exact truth from our Messiah, and that’s what we are digging down to find. I did check Matthew 12:40 and there are no variants in the various Greek manuscripts, so it looks very solid on the three days and three nights (the Lord also referred to Jonah 1:17, where it is "three days and three nights" there too). From what I have researched I believe the Wed. Crucifixion to Saturday Resurrection does not fit the scriptures for several reasons. Here are a few from what I have seen:

1. According to the scriptures the Jewish women came early Sunday morning to the tomb in order to finish the burial preparations for the body. If the crucifixion was on Wednesday the body would most likely have “seen corruption” by Sunday morning. The women are going as soon as possible that morning to finish before the corruption sets in (from Thursday’s crucifixion there would be no corruption yet, from my understanding). But still they are rushing to get there as soon as they can. Now the big question with the Wednesday crucifixion (on the 14th day, if Yeshua was our Passover, according to God’s foreknowledge) is why did these women wait so long until the body had probably seen corruption (voiding the scripture that He would not suffer his holy one to see corruption)? In other words, if Wed was the 14th day, these reverent women would have rested the Sabbath (as they did in Luke 23:56), which would have been Thursday (ie the 15th day Sabbath, which always follows the 14th day Passover sacrifice, as per God’s law). So then Friday would have been the perfect time for these women to go anoint the body before any corruption set in. But for some strange reason we are to believe that they sat around all day Friday until the Sabbath began, and then rested that Sabbath also, then came on Sunday morning four days after the Sunday crucifixion. To me this is a huge point, and there is really no reason why some of his followers would not have finished anointing and preparing the body on Friday, had Wednesday been the 14th day crucifixion.

2. If we believe that God gave the commands to Moses regarding Passover and first fruits to Moses by His foreknowledge, then we would expect these things to play out exactly as God set them up, with Messiah being the true Passover on the 14th day. Some may say it was just a 365 to one odds that it happened to take place on that day (which the Talmud agrees it was on the 14th day Yeshu was hung on a tree). I take the belief that God knew the days and commanded them to Moses accordingly. So in that sense, Paul calls Messiah our Passover (not our “day late Passover” as Rome believes), but Paul also calls Yeshua the “first fruits” (meaning the first fruits of the resurrection, 1 Cor 15:20-23). God commanded for this First Fruits offering to take place on the morrow of the Sabbath after Passover. As a side note, at some time around the time of Christ I believe there was a big disagreement between the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Pharisees said this was supposed to be after the 15th day Sabbath, the Sadducees said no that word is the regular word for Sabbath and it means after the Saturday Sabbath (i.e. Sunday). The Pharisees won out on that, as they had control at that time over the Temple proceedings. And Jesus said their traditions made void the word of God. But back to our talk, the scripture says this offering (and accepting by God) was to be on the morrow of the Sabbath, not late on the Sabbath (Lev. 23:11). I believe it is amazing that God knew that the morrow of the Sabbath (the first day of the week, Sunday) was going to be three days away from the 14th day Passover this year, and Yeshua knowing all this typology would have known that this is when his resurrection would be (the third day from Thursday). There are many different combinations each year, of what day of the week the 14th occur, because in some years the Morrow of the Sabbath might be one or two days away, or 6 days away, but in this year it was three days away. So Messiah the first fruits of the resurrection showed that thankfully this offering was accepted by God, and it shows this by fulfilling that offering, and being resurrected on the “morrow of the Sabbath” and not “on the Sabbath.”

3. There are two quick points I would like to bring on Wednesday fulfilling the three days and three nights idea. In the Torah, if someone became unclean, lets say it was an hour before sundown on our Sunday, and if they were to wash and then be unclean seven days the portion of any day was considered as a day. I believe this was the idiom that Yeshua was using as well. He did not say “in exactly three 24 hour days to the second” he was just comparing to Jonah who was in the whale those days, he knew that the Jonah event applied to him. But he only said it that way once (in my quick search) and most of the other times he said either “arise the third day” or “after three days” and here is a footnote from my book below where on page 395 I talk on that: Jesus saying he would arise from the dead the third day (compare Luke 24:21 with Luke 24:46) does not contradict what he said about being in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. The former statement meant the third day following his crucifixion, and the latter statement was fulfilled exactly as he meant it (see item 4 in the “Saturday Resurrection Option” section). The same is true for when he said he would arise after three days (Mark 8:31), meaning it would occur after the portion of three days (and three nights, Matthew 12:40) were fulfilled. Some have attempted to prove a contradiction here, but none exists. (end quote)

4. So to conclude on that, I believe the scriptures are clear that he was in the heart of the earth at least a portion of three day periods (Thursday before the Sabbath set in, Friday, And Saturday) and he was also there for a portion of three night periods (and for those that may not know their night came first and then the day, see Gen. 1:5). So the three nights were the night that came after the crucifixion, that began the 15th day (i.e. the first half of our Friday) then the next night (the first half of our Saturday), and then the third half, which would have been the night that comes after the Sabbath, being the morrow of the Sabbath, the first half of our Sunday, i.e. the night period). The Wednesday theory though has Yeshua in the tomb four day periods, Wednesday before Sabbath sets in, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. I agree that if the Messiah had said “three exact 24 hour periods to the minute” that the Wednesday option would look a lot better, but then you still have the Messiah our first fruits resurrecting on the Sabbath, instead of the morrow of the Sabbath as God commanded. I do not believe the Messiah’s focus was on the exact number of hours when he said that one verse (Matt. 12:40), instead I believe his focus was on comparing what he would go through to what Jonah went through, and nothing says Jonah was three exact 24 hour days.


AbbaLove, do you know if most Messianics believe that the Passover was eaten at the last supper that year (on Tuesday evening as Wednesday began)? And if so wouldn’t they have a problem with Messiah being our day late Passover, and being crucified against God’s law on the high holy Sabbath of the 15th day? You mentioned that Messianic’s feel there are more important things whether it was the 14th day or 15th day that week, but I believe it is very important that we have these days correct as to the truth of what really happened. One big reason I say this is because all the Churches keep an unleavened bread ritual called Communion, and other Messianic Fellowships eat Matzah as a last supper remembrance. And I believe that by missing the days these things happened both sides miss the truth of what the Messiah was meaning in his last supper parables, when he broke the one leavened body into pieces, and then said this is my body.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Greek word for ordinary leavened bread is (Strong’s 740) used at least 72 times. In the “last supper” accounts in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22 and Luke 22:19, Yeshua took bread , blessed it, broke it and gave it to the disciples. Yeshua compared Himself to leavened bread in John 6:35 where He called Himself the “bread of life”. I tried to get the Greek word to show up but it didn't... but it is leavened in all cases.

I know we have been trying to make the connection with the unleavened bread, the unleavened bread feast and Yeshua's body. We have accepted a leavening is not good. Sin is represented by leavening the whole loaf. It may be that it is the age of the leavening agent that is "old"

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul draws a parallel between the spiritual growth of a believer and the bread making process. Paul points out that the death of Yeshua has cleansed us of the old leaven (1Cor 5:7) and given us the opportunity of a new beginning. Each year the cleansing of leaven out of the home in all its forms is a strong tradition. But it also has its benefits back then.

Bread, throughout most of history, was made by a process that is known as “sour dough”. A small amount of leavened dough from the previous batch is mixed into the new batch. Sometimes the starter could live on (it contains a living organism) for many years. The idea is to get back to the basic pure ingredients (sincerity and truth) and to start again.

The first thing you do to a new batch of dough is to mix in the leaven starter. If people thought their neighbor had better tasting bread, they would request a piece of that neighbor’s starter. Yeshua is our best neighbor to be asking for a fresh starter. The starter contains life and under its influence would reproduce (with the proper conditions and time) a product identical to the original loaf the starter came from (if the ingredients were the same).

Another problem people have with sour dough is the care that had to be taken to ensure that the starter would remain alive and active. The bread maker realized if the starter was not kept in a good environment, the life in the living bread (the starter), was in danger of dying. If the all-important starter died, due to the baker’s negligence in the care that was taken of the starter, big trouble would be the result. I know, I have failed to keep it alive. The bread would be lifeless and flat. The process would never complete itself, and the bread would remain in an unfinished state. The bread would not rise with that delightful texture and taste that we have all grown to love.

I don't know where this is leading but I thought I would share my "starter" with you.

Visionary thank you for your interesting points on the dough and the leaven starter. If I could add just one point (from my perspective) on the leaven in bread representing sin. We know that in the scriptures things are sometimes used symbolically, for teaching, like you mention Paul comparing the old leaven to the sin that was happening with the Corinthians, and where the Messiah compared certain false teachings to leaven. Some Christians have attacked my book, especially Course one where i prove it was leavened bread at the last supper and they say I am equating the Messiah to sin (i.e. since I say it was leavened bread). But the Israelite's ate "bread" for thousands of years and it was never a sinful thing. And when Yeshua gave them pieces of the one leavened bread he was of course not saying for them to eat some sin, or sinful bread. Bread was totally fine to eat all year long, but the leavening and rising (as you point out) was used in a symbolic sense for teaching. God called the unleavened bread the "bread of affliction" but only because of what it represented as they left Egypt. When God commanded his offerings in the fire to him to be without leaven (i.e. unleavened) He was not saying "offer to me the bread of affliction" because that was not the point He was trying to make. The Messiah was the one unleavened one, and symbolically he is the only one who could go straight up to heaven in the fire, and that is how that typology fits. And when God commanded them to use leavened bread in the offering at Pentecost, by commanding it to be leavened He was not meaning that they should all partake of "sinful bread," but it only pointed forward to the fulfillment (probably to the two breads, the Jewish and Gentile believers). Same thing with the Showbread, that were always called bread (lechem) and never Matzah, and they represented the twelve tribes. God still allowed them in the holy place in the Temple and called them presence breads. The focus was not really on sinful bad breads, but rather it was the flavorful breads that gave nourishment, and that pointed forward to those believers who would dwell and walk in His presence. Then again, when after the Passover they were to have no leaven seven days, one could make the point then when we accept the Messiah we should change our lives and seek to have the leaven removed, while still knowing that perfection takes time and God's plan being fulfilled (probably in the third feast being fulfilled). So I hope I am not rambling but I said all that to say it is not just one thing when things are used symbolically. Sometimes the leaven of bread can refer pictorially to sin, and other times sin is not in the picture at all when speaking of bread, such as the verse you mention "I am the bread of life."

 

[AbbaLove]

AbbaLove, I always appreciate the way you bring things. Whether you agree or not you make your points in a good spirit and I really appreciate that. After all, we all only want the exact truth from our Messiah, and that’s what we are digging down to find.

Thank you (as always) for your kind words

The intent of my previous posts as well as this post is not to debate or come across as someone who believes they're right and no one can change my mind (although some may differ). The purpose of my post(s) to you is more for feedback from you, which is much appreciated. Although, you may be tiring of feedback it's better than a cold shoulder or the silent treatment. Should mention i'm 71, and have been around the block a few times (probably too many times), so for what it's worth here's my two cents of feedback.

1. AOK! That is probably the best KIS explanation to a MJ 4th day (Wednesday) crucifixion that most may never have considered. Three and one half days (on the 4th day) is around how long Lazarus was in the tomb.

Yeshua said, “Take the stone away!” Marta, the sister of the dead man, said to Yeshua, “By now his body must smell, for it has been four days since he died!”​

After three and one half days (on the 4th day since crucifixion) it's highly unlikely that these women would be taking prepared spices to the tomb. However, one the other hand, it does provide fuel for both Protestants and Catholics that hold to a Good Friday "synecdoche" scenario. It's probably not even worth the time trying to convince some otherwise.

2. Again further explanation that Nisan 14 occurred on the fifth day (Thursday), not on the fourth day, Wednesday.

3. We agree that all relevant scripture must work together (make sense) when supporting a viewpoint that is open to debate (e.g. "on the third day," "after three days" and "three days and three nights") unless there's evidence of a mistranslation in a particular scripture. That said, am beginning to pick up on the use of “synecdoche" reasoning to justify "three days and three nights" when only two 12 hr days had elapsed. Then we get into what is the legit use of “synecdoche" ("after three days") with respect to both the remaining daylight on Nisan 14, before Yeshua was placed in the grave/tomb AND His resurrection at the break of daylight occurring a few seconds/minutes after sunrise to support "on the third day" in a Good Friday scenario. That's why i'd hoped there was a scenarion where the use of “synecdoche" wouldn't have to come into play as it's used to justify a Good Friday scenario.

6th day probably less than 1 hr of daylight (considered first day)
7th day 12 hrs of nighttime and 12 hrs of daylight (considered second day)
1st day 12 hrs of nighttime before Yeshua arose at sunrise (considered third day)​

A Protestant and Catholic could contend that it makes more sense to arrive at the tomb with prepared spices on the 1st day of the week ... 37 hrs (Good Friday synecdoche scenario) after Yeshua lay in the tomb compared to 37+24=71 hrs after Yeshua lay in the tomb (Thursday synecdoche "after three days"). Is there a KIS explanation to refute a "Good Friday" synecdoche scenario being that few, if any, can disprove that Nisan 14 did not occur on a Friday in 30 AD and 33 AD?

4. So, one “synecdoche~ist" would explain that the remaining minutes/hour of daylight on the fifth day of the week, Thursday was the 1st of three days. Another “synecdoche~ist" would also contend that the remaining daylight on Good Friday was the first day, Saturday being the second day and when Yeshua arose at daybreak on Siunday would qualify as "on the third day," but "after three days" might pose a problem. How would you answer someone who contends that “synecdoche" can be used for both the remaining daylight on Friday as well as the first sunbeams of daybreak on Sunday morn? That such accounting of the reckoning of days (synecdoche) was, in fact, part of ancient Jewish culture long before the Greek named it "sunekdokhē" or "ynecdoche" in Latin.
______________

Also, it does stand to reason that everyone was seated at the "Last Supper" before sunset on Nisan 13. The meal itself may have been well along before sundown without the need for candlelight. Then any foot washing in partial darkness would be less obtrusive or offensive to anyone so inclined.

 

[AbbaLove]

I did check Matthew 12:40 and there are no variants in the various Greek manuscripts, so it looks very solid on the three days and three nights (the Lord also referred to Jonah 1:17, where it is "three days and three nights" there too).

When you read Matthew 26:17-28 in the Complete Jewish Bible does it make you wonder if the uphill struggle you face is worth the effort It cdertainly doesn't make your MJ task any easier, as if it isn't already difficult enough with Protestants and Catholics.

17 On the first day for matzah, the talmidim came to Yeshua and asked, “Where do you want us to prepare your Seder?”
18 “Go into the city, to so-and-so,” He replied, “and tell him that the Rabbi says, ‘My time is near, My talmidim and I are celebrating Pesach at your house.’”
19 The talmidim did as Yeshua directed and prepared the Seder.
20 When evening came, Yeshua reclined with the twelve talmidim;
21 and as they were eating, He said, “Yes, I tell you that one of you is going to betray Me.”
22 They became terribly upset and began asking Him, one after the other, “Lord, you don’t mean me, do you?”
23 He answered, “The one who dips his matzah in the dish with Me is the one who will betray Me.
24 The Son of Man will die just as the Tanakh says He will; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for him had he never been born!”
25 Y’hudah, the one who was betraying Him, then asked, “Surely, Rabbi, you don’t mean me?” He answered, “The words are yours.”
26 While they were eating, Yeshua took a piece of matzah, made the b’rakhah, broke it, gave it to the talmidim and said, “Take! Eat! This is My Body!”
27 Also He took a cup of wine, made the b’rakhah, and gave it to them, saying, “All of you, drink from it!
28 For this is My Blood, which ratifies the New Covenant, My Blood shed on behalf of many, so that they may have their sins forgiven."​

You're learning more through it all that is refining, polishing and pleasing to HIM​

​

 

[Alex Tennent]

Thank you (as always) for your kind words

The intent of my previous posts as well as this post is not to debate or come across as someone who believes they're right and no one can change my mind (although some may differ). The purpose of my post(s) to you is more for feedback from you, which is much appreciated. Although, you may be tiring of feedback it's better than a cold shoulder or the silent treatment. Should mention i'm 71, and have been around the block a few times (probably too many times), so for what it's worth here's my two cents of feedback.

1. AOK! That is probably the best KIS explanation to a MJ 4th day (Wednesday) crucifixion that most may never have considered. Three and one half days (on the 4th day) is around how long Lazarus was in the tomb.

Yeshua said, “Take the stone away!” Marta, the sister of the dead man, said to Yeshua, “By now his body must smell, for it has been four days since he died!”​

After three and one half days (on the 4th day since crucifixion) it's highly unlikely that these women would be taking prepared spices to the tomb. However, one the other hand, it does provide fuel for both Protestants and Catholics that hold to a Good Friday "synecdoche" scenario. It's probably not even worth the time trying to convince some otherwise.

2. Again further explanation that Nisan 14 occurred on the fifth day (Thursday), not on the fourth day, Wednesday.

3. We agree that all relevant scripture must work together (make sense) when supporting a viewpoint that is open to debate (e.g. "on the third day," "after three days" and "three days and three nights") unless there's evidence of a mistranslation in a particular scripture. That said, am beginning to pick up on the use of “synecdoche" reasoning to justify "three days and three nights" when only two 12 hr days had elapsed. Then we get into what is the legit use of “synecdoche" ("after three days") with respect to both the remaining daylight on Nisan 14, before Yeshua was placed in the grave/tomb AND His resurrection at the break of daylight occurring a few seconds/minutes after sunrise to support "on the third day" in a Good Friday scenario. That's why i'd hoped there was a scenarion where the use of “synecdoche" wouldn't have to come into play as it's used to justify a Good Friday scenario.

6th day probably less than 1 hr of daylight (considered first day)
7th day 12 hrs of nighttime and 12 hrs of daylight (considered second day)
1st day 12 hrs of nighttime before Yeshua arose at sunrise (considered third day)​

A Protestant and Catholic could contend that it makes more sense to arrive at the tomb with prepared spices on the 1st day of the week ... 49 hrs after Yeshua lay in the tomb rather than 49+24=73 hrs after Yeshua lay in the tomb. Is there a KIS explanation to refute a "Good Friday" scenario being that few, if any, can disprove that Nisan 14 did not occur on a Friday in 30 AD and 33 AD?

4. So, a “synecdoche~ist" would choose the remaining minutes/hour of daylight on the fifth day of the week, Thursday. Even moreso a really true “synecdoche~ist" would contend that the few minutes of daylight on the first day of the week (Sunday) when Yeshua arose would also qualify as "on third day," but "after three days" might pose a problem. How would you answer when some (rightly) contend that such “synecdoche" was, in fact, part of ancient Jewish culture (e.g. Psalms) long before the Greek named it "sunekdokhē" or "ynecdoche" in Latin.
______________

Also, it does stand to reason that everyone was seated at the "Last Supper" before sunset on Nisan 13. The meal itself may have been well along before sundown without the need for candlelight. Then any foot washing in partial darkness would be less obtrusive or offensive to anyone so inclined.

I am only 10 years behind you AbbaLove but I will be sure to still respect my elder.

Also thank you for that Lazarus scripture, I had read that before but did not connect it to my points as to why Wednesday does not fit, so thank you much for that.

3. Another thing I forgot to mention is when Yeshua said that his three days and three nights in the earth was like Jonah, since he died at the ninth hour (2:00-3:00) and he left his body for Sheol (figuratively the heart of the earth, the righteous portion) he was not just there in the figurative heart of the earth for a short time on that Thursday but for 3 or 4 hours.

I think the KIS that defeats the Good Friday is that it voids Luke 24:1, 18-21 which shows them walking with the resurrected Lord on the first day of the week (Sunday) and they say it is the third day since "these things" happened. And those verses 18-21 show that the "these things" were the delivering up, arrest, and crucifixion. So if "these things" really happened on Good Friday, then Sunday would have been the second day since "these things" happened. They try to argue and say the word for "since" can also be translated "from," but that does not change anything, Sunday is not the third day from Friday either, it is the second day from Friday! (Saturday is the first day from Friday). And KIS point number two would probably be that their option only has Jesus in the earth for two night periods (not three as Yeshua said). And KIS point number 3 would be that their option has the Messiah being crucified on the 15th day high Sabbath which would make no sense (because they are rushing to get him off the cross before that high day Sabbath begins:

John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

So on the 14th day (which was called the preparation for the 15th day high holy Sabbath) they are rushing to get the bodies down because they could not have bodies on the cross during the Sabbath. But Rome did not care for the Jewish details, and just decided the last supper was the eating of the Passover and Christ was crucified on the 15th day high Sabbath (that always follows the 14th day of course), no worries there for them, regardless of what the scriptures say.

4. As I mentioned on point 3 above, it was not so much a few minutes but almost a whole third of the 12 hour day Thursday (if we say he meant the time he was separated from his body, and in Sheol, at the ninth hour). And as for the few minutes of Sunday, remember that in the Jewish way of reckoning Sunday begins Saturday at sunset (i.e. the night portion of Sunday). So when they get there at 5:00AM (or so) Sunday and Yeshua was gone, that was the whole night period of Sunday (6:00PM - 5:00AM), not just a few minutes. So he was in the heart of the earth 3 or 4 hours Thursday, then the whole day period Friday, and then Saturday (which makes three days), and he Resurrected before the day period on Sunday. Jesus said there were 12 hours in the day, the Jews started numbering the daytime hours at 6AM.
I hope I am answering your questions but let me know if this raises more questions.

And on your following question I am a bit slow on some things, could you re phrase it?!
How would you answer when some (rightly) contend that such “synecdoche" was, in fact, part of ancient Jewish culture (e.g. Psalms) long before the Greek named it "sunekdokhē" or "ynecdoche" in Latin.

 

[Alex Tennent]

When you read Matthew 26:17-28 in the Complete Jewish Bible does it make you wonder if the uphill struggle you face is worth the effort It cdertainly doesn't make your MJ task any easier, as if it isn't already difficult enough with Protestants and Catholics.

17 On the first day for matzah, the talmidim came to Yeshua and asked, “Where do you want us to prepare your Seder?”
18 “Go into the city, to so-and-so,” He replied, “and tell him that the Rabbi says, ‘My time is near, My talmidim and I are celebrating Pesach at your house.’”
19 The talmidim did as Yeshua directed and prepared the Seder.
20 When evening came, Yeshua reclined with the twelve talmidim;
21 and as they were eating, He said, “Yes, I tell you that one of you is going to betray Me.”
22 They became terribly upset and began asking Him, one after the other, “Lord, you don’t mean me, do you?”
23 He answered, “The one who dips his matzah in the dish with Me is the one who will betray Me.
24 The Son of Man will die just as the Tanakh says He will; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for him had he never been born!”
25 Y’hudah, the one who was betraying Him, then asked, “Surely, Rabbi, you don’t mean me?” He answered, “The words are yours.”
26 While they were eating, Yeshua took a piece of matzah, made the b’rakhah, broke it, gave it to the talmidim and said, “Take! Eat! This is My Body!”
27 Also He took a cup of wine, made the b’rakhah, and gave it to them, saying, “All of you, drink from it!
28 For this is My Blood, which ratifies the New Covenant, My Blood shed on behalf of many, so that they may have their sins forgiven."​

You're learning more through it all that is refining, polishing and pleasing to HIM​

​

Great point and example AbbaLove. If translators are certain things happened a certain way they will often roll through what the scripture actually says so as to give the scripture the proper look (like dipping the matzah above), so various groups can be susceptible to that.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Although, you may be tiring of feedback it's better than a cold shoulder or the silent treatment.

I forgot to say AbbaLove that I enjoy all your feedback, and yes, its much better than the cold shoulder, I do get my dose of that. : o

 

[daq]

I forgot to say AbbaLove that I enjoy all your feedback, and yes, its much better than the cold shoulder, I do get my dose of that. : o

Hi Alex, and welcome to the forum, (sincerely). I do not agree much at all with the things you have presented but just want to say that, by not responding thus far, I do not mean it as "the cold shoulder", (speaking only for myself of course) but rather it is difficult since you have already written a book and I do not consider my own place to be "the destroyer" of anyone or his work. The very fact that you stated earlier how "others have attacked your book" helps intimate what I mean, (I hope). It is nothing personal and imo everyone has the right to present what he or she believes when it comes to the emphasis, (MJ) of this board. Therefore I also did not want to look like I was harassing you and prefer to let others say what they want to say in peace out of respect for brethren. If you had posted ten threads in two days it might be different but this thread was started by Lulav and I myself am actually glad to see that you found it, responded, and are presenting your understanding.
.
.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Hi Alex, and welcome to the forum, (sincerely). I do not agree much at all with the things you have presented but just want to say that, by not responding thus far, I do not mean it as "the cold shoulder", (speaking only for myself of course) but rather it is difficult since you have already written a book and I do not consider my own place to be "the destroyer" of anyone or his work. The very fact that you stated earlier how "others have attacked your book" helps intimate what I mean, (I hope). It is nothing personal and imo everyone has the right to present what he or she believes when it comes to the emphasis, (MJ) of this board. Therefore I also did not want to look like I was harassing you and prefer to let others say what they want to say in peace out of respect for brethren. If you had posted ten threads in two days it might be different but this thread was started by Lulav and I myself am actually glad to see that you found it, responded, and are presenting your understanding.
.
.

Hi Daq, and thank you very much for your welcome and your nice post. I totally agree with you that everyone has the right to present what they believe here. I made that statement to AbbaLove in a certain sense, and definitely do not think my words should be spared from challenging when someone feels what I say is wrong. I think there is a good way to bring disagreements, without calling the other person an idiot (for example) but I honestly would welcome anyone's thoughts on where I, or the book, are wrong on any point. I believe very confidently that what I have brought forth here is accurate and true to the God anointed Greek scriptures (mainly because I have spent so much time looking at every angle), so I am really not worried about someone coming up with a new way of looking at the scriptures that contradicts my book. All I would ask is if you do bring things where I am wrong that you would be specific on the points you disagree with, and we discuss and prove one or two points at a time. I promise that your bringing specific points of disagreement will not be viewed by me as harassment, so please do feel free my friend and brother. So yes Daq, I honestly await your first few points where you believe I have missed the truth. And thank you again for your good spirit as seen in your post.

 

[Alex Tennent]

Hi Alex, and welcome to the forum, (sincerely). I do not agree much at all with the things you have presented but just want to say that, by not responding thus far, I do not mean it as "the cold shoulder", (speaking only for myself of course) but rather it is difficult since you have already written a book and I do not consider my own place to be "the destroyer" of anyone or his work. The very fact that you stated earlier how "others have attacked your book" helps intimate what I mean, (I hope). It is nothing personal and imo everyone has the right to present what he or she believes when it comes to the emphasis, (MJ) of this board. Therefore I also did not want to look like I was harassing you and prefer to let others say what they want to say in peace out of respect for brethren. If you had posted ten threads in two days it might be different but this thread was started by Lulav and I myself am actually glad to see that you found it, responded, and are presenting your understanding.
.
.

PS Daq I forgot to say that we might start off by your answering the "Template Challenge" in my book where I list ten scriptural time keys and ask those with other views to fit them together as they believed they happened within the template of this Jewish Passover as instructed by God. The time keys are things like what day did Yeshua arise, what day was the last supper, what day was the eating of the Passover, etc. It's just a five minute exercise but I think it is very helpful for one to see how their views fit into the Template of this God given Jewish Festival. That Template Challenge can be found here: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Template-Challenge.pdf

 

[daq]

PS Daq I forgot to say that we might start off by your answering the "Template Challenge" in my book where I list ten scriptural time keys and ask those with other views to fit them together as they believed they happened within the template of this Jewish Passover as instructed by God. The time keys are things like what day did Yeshua arise, what day was the last supper, what day was the eating of the Passover, etc. It's just a five minute exercise but I think it is very helpful for one to see how their views fit into the Template of this God given Jewish Festival. That Template Challenge can be found here: http://themessianicfeast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TMF_Template-Challenge.pdf

Hi Alex, well okay, upon a first glance at the challenge I see several things that I would not count as things with which I need to conform my doctrine:

"1. Jesus being in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."

Yes, in the underground Sanhedrin dungeon pit below the Chambers, (in the heart of the Land) from the morning of seventeen Abib until the trial at sunrise the morning of twenty Abib, (the Preparation Day before the great high mikra kodesh Shabbat Gadol and final feast day of the Passover, which seventh day itself is also called a feast, Exodus 13:6).

"2. The Last Supper."

Perhaps you might investigate the following transliterated Hebrew phrase: "bə·‘e·ṣem [`etsem] hay·yō·wm haz·zeh" which is employed ten times, (and a variation once in Leviticus 23:14). What does `etsem mean in this context? Surely the KJV rendering of "the selfsame day" is severely lacking. What if it means something more along the lines of "the body of this day"? What then is the body of the day when it comes to the Unleavened Feast of the Passover? What constitutes the full body of that day given in Exodus 12? Is the Passover one single day or is it seven days which are the body of one great day in the eyes of our Maker? Why did the ancients conflate "the Passover" with "the Feast of Unleavened Bread" making both terms essentially interchangeable? (I suggest that the above is the reason why).

My answer to #2 is therefore the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth of Abib, and the temple, (the talmidim) is fully cleansed with the washing of their feet and the end of the sixteenth of Abib, (see 2 Chronicles 29:17 for the type, and also, this cleansing in the ministry of Messiah commenced in the tenth day of Abib with the casting out of the money-changers of the powerful arms of the branches of the Ananus ben Seth family enterprise business out from the physical Temple which was also cleansed).

"3. The 14th-day Passover sacrifice."

Yochanan the Immerser calls Yeshua "the Amnos" of Elohim in John 1:29 and John 1:36. In Acts 8:32 we again see amnos used in the quote from Isaiah 53:7 and these, (and amnou from 1 Peter 1:19) are the only places in the commonly accepted modern canon of the Apostolic writings where amnos is employed concerning Yeshua, (the book of the Apocalypse reads the masculine forms of arnion everywhere therein). In the LXX Septuagint versions of Isaiah 53:7 we do indeed find the word amnos, as quoted in Acts 8:32, but when we look in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:7 we find rachel, (which is the same as the name of Rachel) which is feminine, that is by interpretation from the context, an ewe-lamb, ("the flesh", the physical, and the soul are most generally if not always accounted in feminine gender in allegory and typology). So although amnos is categorized as masculine where it is found in John and Acts I do not feel compelled to agree with those conclusions based on the plain Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:7. It is therefore my understanding that Messiah Yeshua fulfills all of the feast of the week of Passover Unleavened Bread, and that all of the offerings are likewise fulfilled in him including the Chagigah, where Elohim provides the Ram, as likewise in Genesis 22; for that great day is also the fulfillment of his vow, ("And this is the law of him that has vowed, in whatever day he shall have fulfilled the days of his vow, he shall bring himself to the door of the tabernacle of witness; and he shall bring his doran to Adonai: one amnon-he-lamb of a year old without blemish for an whole-burnt-ascending offering, and one amnada-ewe-lamb of a year old without blemish for a sin-offering, and one ram without blemish for a soterion."). We are therefore far apart in understanding concerning the Passover and I therefore have no need to fit everything into the challenge you have put forth. Yeshua was crucified in the same day wherein Moshe lifted up the rod of Elohim, and the Reed Sea was parted, so that the people could Passover on dry ground into the Shabbat Gadol and Sanctuary of Rest, (Song of Moshe).

PS ~ that being said, it is likewise doubtful that many others here would agree with me so do not feel bad, (lol).
.
.