Was it Leavened or Unleavened?
|Questions are occasionally asked about the type of bread that Jesus used as an emblem of His body in the Passover. Was it leavened or unleavened? How people answer this question determines which type of bread is used for the Passover or as some groups prefer—the Lord’s Supper.|
Confusion about “which type of bread?” can occur because of the all-encompassing nature of the Greek word used for “bread” in the New Testament. The Greek artos is unlike Hebrew, which has a specific term for unleavened bread, matzah. Hence the festival known as Hag Hamatsos.
Artos is the word used for bread of any description. By way of example, we see that manna is referred to as artos (John 6:31), as was the “showbread” in the tabernacle (Hebrews 9:2), specified in Leviticus 24:5. Yet these were unleavened loaves. When Christ performed a miracle to feed 4,000 people with seven loaves and a few fish (Matthew 15:32-37), the word used for loaves was artos, in this case probably leavened bread. Christ described Himself as the artos of life (John 6:48-51). And the bread taken at the Passover by Christ is also calledartos (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, John 13:18).
Not only could artos be used for bread, it could also be used metaphorically for food in general. For example, when Christ prayed that God would give us our daily bread or artos(Matthew 6:11), He was referring to the food we need each day for our physical sustenance—not just to bread.
In contrast, the term azumos, used some nine times in the New Testament, is not ambiguous. It means “without leaven.” As a result, some conclude that the use of the wordartos by itself without any qualification for the Passover bread means that leavened bread was used. But this is not the case.
Although azumos means “without leaven,” it is not used specifically to describe bread—it is used as the name of the festival itself. What we translate as the Feast of Unleavened Bread from the Hebrew would simply be “the Feast of Unleavened” when translated from the Greek. The term “bread” has been added in English-language Bibles (e.g. Matthew 26:17). Only once is the word azumos used to describe the state of being unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:7), and even there it is not related to bread, but to our spiritual state. And in the next verse we are told to celebrate the Feast with the azumos of sincerity and truth.
So the fact that artos is used for the Passover bread instead of azumos does not mean that the bread was leavened. Artos was used to describe bread of any description—azumos was not used to describe bread at all.
So how do we know whether the bread Jesus used as an emblem of His body in the Passover was leavened or unleavened? We simply need to understand that the all-encompassing Greek term artos has to be interpreted by its context.In this case, we need to remember that the New Testament was written principally to a Jewish audience. How would they have associated the use of the term artos with Passover? They would have seen it as unleavened artos because that was the type of bread used for the Passover (Exodus 12:1-8). Any problem we may have about what type of bread was used stems from our distance from those times and culture. Matthew 26:17 and Luke 22:7 record that the First of Unleavened Bread had come. As the Passover required matzah, then that unleavened bread was being prepared that day for that event. So the use of the term “bread” (artos) for the bread used in relation to the New Testament Passover bread should be understood in that context.
Why was it conflated into the Passover celebration?
At some point in time, the events of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread came to be called by a common name and literally merged into one event of eight days. It is normally considered that the conflation of the two events, outlined in Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23 came about as a result of the Rabbis, as suggested by R. Joshua Maroof in his blog Vesom Sechel. R. George Wolf, whom I quoted last week, takes a more specific view. In addressing this issue he opines:
Who was responsible for this new name and the creation of a new Pesach liturgy of Haggadah for the new Pesach festival? It was Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavne, (80-115 C.E.), the Nasi, who wished to preserve the unity of the Jewish people and halt the inroads of Pauline Christianity. In order to replace the centralized sacrificial cult, he supervised the creation of a non-sacrificial prayer service. The Pesach liturgy or Haggadah, served as a replacement for the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb and was also a defense of Judaism against the Pauline interpretation of the Pesach festival.
The redaction of a Haggadah for the new Pesach home festival provided Jews with an official and authentic interpretation and expression of this festival’s ceremonies and theology transmitted by tradition from Moses and the Prophets to the Pharisaic Rabbis.
It demonstrated to Jews that the destruction of the Temple was only a temporary situation and didn’t reflect a change in God’s relationship with the Jewish people, namely that God’s old covenant or promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was still in force and was not abrogated by the new covenant.
The new name Pesach was chosen because it meant protection, to emphasize to Jews that they were still under God’s protection, as they were during their sojourn in Egyptian bondage.
In taking such a view of the change Wolf highlights a major issue. Certainly Paul commanded the Corinthian church to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread (1 Corinthians 5:6-8), so where does the idea of Paul being anti-Torah and not requiring gentiles to observe Jewish dietary and festival obligations come from?
If Wolf is correct in his interpretation, ‘Pauline’ theology at the end of the century was a very different theology from what is considered Pauline theology today! It would then present a situation in which those churches established by Paul—who died in the early 60’s some 24 -30 years prior to the events Wolf addresses—would have been indistinguishable from other groups who are commonly called Jewish Christians. Hence the commonly supposed opposition of Paul and James would have been a fiction as well. Wolf presents a uniform view of the first century followers as being Torah observant in a way that few Christian scholars today would be prepared to accept.
George Wolf, Lexical and Historical Contributions on the Biblical and
Rabbinic Passover (New York: G. Wolf, 1991), 38–39.
Was Jesus Christ really crucified on a Friday?
Today it is largely accepted without question that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. Most people accept this scenario as there was a Sabbath following and everyone knows that the Jews keep the Sabbath on Saturday. So ipso facto, the crucifixion had to be on Friday.
Making such an assumption shows how little is commonly understood about the world into which Jesus was born, lived and died. However, by putting the key events into context, we can discover more details from the Gospels.
Jesus was crucified on the 14th Nisan and died about 3:00 p.m. The next day, 15th Nisan, was an annual festival: the first day of the seven days of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:6-7) which was associated with the Passover. So depending upon which day of the week the 15th fell, it was possible to have two Sabbaths during the week in which Jesus Christ was crucified. That possibility creates numerous scenarios for reconstructing the factors given in the gospels.
Rodney J. Decker, Professor of Greek and New Testament at the Baptist Bible College published a paper in which he examined this aspect of the crucifixion week. It is available on his blog and is well worth the read and consideration.
The upshot is that he also considers the impact of Jesus being in the tomb three days and three nights and offers a non-orthodox reading of the event. To be fair to his considerations of the resurrection, what was to prevent that event occurring at sunset on Saturday evening? That would have made a strict three days and three nights, as opposed to the three days and four nights that Decker suggests.
Next week is the time of the Jewish Passover, which represents the real time that Jesus was crucified, rather than the Easter weekend, which this year was almost a month removed from the event according to the Hebrew calendar.
Rabbinic changes to the Passover to distance it from the early Church
In a short work on the Passover, Rabbi George Wolf examines some of the changes that he considers the early Rabbis introduced to the Passover in response to the observance by the early church. Scholars have long studied the New Testament without a serious consideration of other literature that impinges on its understanding. Fortunately that has begun to change in the last half century.
The action of Jesus Christ with his disciples the night of his betrayal has most often been seen as a point of disjuncture with the established practices of Judaism of that day. This reaches its apex with the apostle Paul who speaks of the “Lord’s Supper,” which most exegetes wish to see as the proto-eucharist and the start of a Christian festival cycle independent of the Jewish Holy Days.
Wolf, like some Jewish scholars sees it differently. He sees both Jesus and Paul keeping the Passover in such a manner that it prompted the Rabbis of the second and third centuries to bring changes to the Jewish practice to distance the Jews from the emerging church.
As an example, Wolf examines the use of haroset in the Seder meal, which he sees as being a red accompaniment to the meal possibly originally derived from pomegranates. Haroset is nowhere mentioned in the Biblical record but its place in the Seder dates back to the time of the destruction of the second temple in C.E. 70 when it was introduced to represent the blood of passover lamb that could no longer be killed at the temple.
Initial references to this are recorded by R. Eleazar Ben Zadok, a pupil of Gamaliel II (80-115 C.E.). By the time the Mishnah was codified over a century later, Ben Zadok’s opinion on haroset had become simply a footnote to the then-accepted use of haroset to represent the clay of Egypt used by the ancient Israelites in brick-making. Wolf sees this change in understanding—from blood, which was part of the Biblical command, to clay, which was a Rabbinic command not included in Scripture—as being an attempt by the Rabbis to distance the Jewish event from that outlined in the New Testament where blood was represented by wine.
Paul's references to Jesus Christ as “our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7) and the cup of blessing representing the blood of the covenant (1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:25) are instructive to Wolf in his considerations. The end result is that the Jewish Passover meal has no references to the blood of the lamb or the blood daubed on the lintels and threshold of a home.
Wolf’s book is entitled: Lexical and Historical Contributions on the Biblical and Rabbinic Passover, (New York: G. Wolf, 1991).
From time to time I join my colleague Peter Nathan blogging here.
I thought the following would be of interest. Reviewing some video files, I came across a timeless interview piece with Professor James Strange in Israel, addressing some of my questions about his work at Sepphoris and the city's proximity to Jesus' home in Nazareth. He also explains his view of the relationship between archeology and the Bible.
Add content here.