quote:

---

Originally posted by Acheson:
Shalom to all:

He wrote: I reply: The fact is, the Greek word "artos" may be used to represent either leavened bread OR unleavened bread. To simply presume that it can only be a reference to leavened bread is a mistake. "Artos" is the Greek word used for the temple shewbread, not "azumos," yet it is commonly known and attested to by the ancients that the temple shewbread was unleavened. If anyone would like for me to cite examples of this, I'll be glad to look them up.

Love in Messiah,

---

Hi Larry,

I looked up the Greek Word for shewbread in The New Testament Greek Lexicon and got this:

Strong's Number: 4286
Original word: pro/qesiv
Transliterated word: Prothesis
Defintion:

1. a setting forth of a thing, placing of it in view, the shewbread

a.) twelve loaves of wheaten bread, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Israel, which loaves were offered to God every Sabbath, and separated into two rows, lay for seven days upon a table placed in the sanctuary or front portion of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple

2. a purpose

And I looked up Artos again in there as well and got a second definition for it:

2.)food of any kind

So I would have to say these words are confusing. Could you explain more of what you mean about artos being used for the shewbread ? Because it's strange that it can be used for any kind of food... huh ? LOL!

I have slaughtered a lamb at 3:00 on the 14th and roasted it on a rotating upright stake. It is impossible to complete the cooking process before sundown. It takes 4 hours minimum. (counting skining, tying legs, gutting, etc)

I don't keep a Master's supper, because that would be an addition to the law of Yahuweh. The bread & wine is not an addition because we find that example when Melchizedek and Abraham partook of the bread and wine. And of course, Messiah and the called out ones are the high priest and priests of the order of Melchizedek. Foot washing is an extension of the real intent of a priest (judge) which is to serve the people humbly and righteously.

Jay

quote:

---

Originally posted by cook:
Missy: I totally agree with you. I think I just was reading this discussion too fast. Although the term "master's supper" was used, my mind read Passover. Does everyone agree that Passover meal is to to be taken with unleavened bread?

I have slaughtered a lamb at 3:00 on the 14th and roasted it on a rotating upright stake. It is impossible to complete the cooking process before sundown. It takes 4 hours minimum. (counting skining, tying legs, gutting, etc)

Jay

---

Sheesh Jay... could you make my mouth water any more ? roasted lamb ..yummy! But I think you should roast it not on an upright stake but horizontally so all the juices don't drip out or run to the end of one side. If you roasted it horizontally instead of vertically all the juices just keep rolling and rolling around in the meat making it tender and it stays juicy. Another trick is wrap aluminum foil around it..and then during the last hour or half hour take it off so the meat can have a nice crisp on the outside but the juices are sealed in the meat!

Okay..enough of my cooking tips!

Anyway..yes.. I agree the Passover meal should be taken with unleavened bread. But I do think Yeshua's Memorial meal can be had with either leavened or unleavend bread. But you MUST make sure that the leaven is GONE before sunset on the 14th. We have unleavened bread during Yeshua's Memorial meal simply because we've removed all the leaven by then anyway so all we have is unleavened bread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cook:
I don't keep a Master's supper, because that would be an addition to the law of Yahuweh. The bread & wine is not an addition because we find that example when Melchizedek and Abraham partook of the bread and wine. And of course, Messiah and the called out ones are the high priest and priests of the order of Melchizedek. Foot washing is an extension of the real intent of a priest (judge) which is to serve the people humbly and righteously.

Jay

[This message has been edited by cook (edited 04-23-2006).]

---

Oh sorry Jay.. I was writing my other reply before you edited. So if you don't have a Master's supper and I am not judging or saying you absolutely should..but I wonder how do you interpret this:

Luke 22:19 And taking bread, giving thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of Me.”

The "do this in remembrance of me part" ?

And technically, if you say that the Master Supper is an addition to the law of Yahweh concerning Passover..really wine and the footwashing are as well. Since Yahweh's direct command is to eat the Passover with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. (Exodus 12).

Yahweh does not mention wine and he does not mention washing of the feet having to do with Passover.... The idea of the four cups of wine comes from Rabbinic tradition based on The Mishnah says (Pes. 10:1) that even the poorest man in Israel has an obligation to drink. Each cup is connected to a different part of the Seder: The First Cup is for Kiddush, the Second Cup is connected with the recounting of the Exodus, the drinking of the Third Cup concludes Grace after meals and the Fourth Cup is associated with Hallel.

Part of the traditional Orthodox Jewish Seder is to wash the hands, not the feet. You could look in any Orthodox Haggaddah and see that, it is called: Urchatz for the first time and Rachtzah for the second washing of hands.

And yes, the footwashing is an extension of the idea to serve humbly and righteously but Yeshua instituted this during his last meal with the Apostles as part of his Memorial. So if you have the foot washing during the Seder..how is this not adding to the law of Yahweh as well if you use the logic that you don't have a Master's Supper since it's a addition to the law of Yahweh ?

You wrote: So if you don't have a Master's supper and I am not judging or saying you absolutely should..

My comment: I’m not condemning it, if a person chooses to keep it, but it is not a command but a tradition:

John 11: 55 And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.
1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

To purify oneself is to examine oneself prior to the Passover. It is necessary to examine ourselves so we do not partake of the Passover unworthily, which can cause weakness, sickness and even death. Paul explains it in 1st Corinthians 11. He goes on to say that if we would just examine ourselves, with repentance, we would not come under condemnation. This is best done in private and alone.

Missy wrote:
And technically, if you say that the Master Supper is an addition to the law of Yahweh concerning Passover..really wine and the footwashing are as well. Since Yahweh's direct command is to eat the Passover with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. (Exodus 12).

Jay’s comment: Yahuweh said through Daniel that Judah and the Levites had seventy weeks to finish the transgressions and make an end to sin and to anoint the Messiah. Judah and the Levites chose to ignore that and actually killed the Messiah they were supposed to anoint. As Paul explains in Hebrews, the priests didn’t do their job, so the system reverts back to the first priesthood (Melchisidek) which was already established by Yahuweh during Abraham’s time.

Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
Psalms 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

So Yahuweh ordains in Psalms that Messiah is a priest after the order of Melchizedek and we see that Melchizedek himself instituted the example of bread and wine which Yahushua, being the current high priest of that order, was following as it was written. Messiah is merely keeping that which was instituted by the first high priest of that order.

I don’t keep any jewish customs. I believe most of them came out of Babylon. I consider the Mishna, etc, additions to the law.

Missy wrote: And yes, the footwashing is an extension of the idea to serve humbly and righteously but Yeshua instituted this during his last meal with the Apostles as part of his Memorial. ..how is this not adding to the law of Yahweh as well if you use the logic that you don't have a Master's Supper since it's a addition to the law of Yahweh ?

Jay’s comment:

John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them

Messiah does not give a command here. The words “ought” “example” “should” in Greek imply, as verse 17 states, they will be blessed (happy) if they do them. I’m sure you know that if the judges (who are priests in black robes) of the US performed as righteous servants the US would truly be blessed.

Later on, in the same chapter, some might say that Messiah gave a new commandment:

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

But love is already one of the greatest commands. Rather the word “new” according to Strongs means:

kainov is the new under the aspect of quality, that which has
not seen service. kainov therefore often means new as contrasted
with that which has decayed with age, or is worn out

So Messiah is magnifying the law, bringin up close and proclaiming the intent of the law and urging love, which has not seen service by the Levites.

Jay

Thanks for explaining how you view it. Given, I would have to say I am not in agreement but I do now understand more clearly your opinion.

My comment: It's not necessary that you agree with me. It is necessary that you are "convicted" in the way you see it.

Thank you for your question. I hope the answer I'm about to give you will be helpful to you.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I looked up the Greek Word for shewbread in The New Testament Greek Lexicon and got this:

Strong's Number: 4286
Original word: pro/qesiv
Transliterated word: Prothesis
Defintion:

1. a setting forth of a thing, placing of it in view, the shewbread

a.) twelve loaves of wheaten bread, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Israel, which loaves were offered to God every Sabbath, and separated into two rows, lay for seven days upon a table placed in the sanctuary or front portion of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple

2. a purpose

And I looked up Artos again in there as well and got a second definition for it:

2.)food of any kind

So I would have to say these words are confusing. Could you explain more of what you mean about artos being used for the shewbread ? Because it's strange that it can be used for any kind of food... huh ? LOL!

---

I reply: When you examine the Greek text for the word "shewbread," you find that this one English word consists of two words in Greek. It's kinda like how the English word "rainbow," which is obviously one word, consists of two words in Spanish ("arco iris").

If we literally translate the Greek terms used for "shewbread" into English, it would be something like "bread of the presence," "loaves of the presentation" or "loaves of the setting-forth." In one English translation of the Septuagint, I noticed this phrase was translated "bread loaves face to face." The two Greek words used to translated "shewbread" are the words "artous tes prothesis." Actually, as I'm sure you could tell, there are three words in that expression, but the word "tes" only functions as a conjunction, meaning "of the."

I hope you're following what I'm trying to explain here! Simply put, the word "artous," in and of itself, does not mean "shewbread." It means "bread"! The other word, "prothesis" is never used to mean "shewbread," either ... at least not by itself. Only by combining the two words do we come up with the word "shewbread."

One example of this can be found in Matthew 12:4, where Yeshua expounds upon the account of King David and the shewbread. In the Greek text, the expression translated "shewbread" is "artous tes prothesis." This same expression is also found in Mark 2:26 and Luke 6:4.

Interestingly, when the term "shewbread" appears in the Greek text of Hebrews 9:2, the order of the Greek words is reversed. It literally reads "prothesis tes artos." If you look up the way Jay P. Green literally translated that particular phrase in his The Interlinear Bible, you will see he rendered it "the setting out of the loaves." I believe this generally expresses what makes the shewbread different from all other bread: It is the bread that was "set out" before YHWH. How it came to be known as "shewbread" is something I do not understand (yet!).

I noticed that in the Septuagint, while the word "artous" is consistently employed in reference to the shewbread, the other Greek word ("prothesis") is not always used, at least not in Exodus 25:30. In that verse the expression "artous enopious" (bread face-to-face) is used.

The main thing here, Missy, is that the word "artos" or its other form "artous" is always used in reference to the shewbread. The other word ("prothesis") is used as an adjective describing the type of "artos." As you can see, it's not just any kind of bread ... it's bread that is set out before YHWH ... in His presence.

The next question is whether or not this "artos" was leavened or unleavened. According to ancient authorities, it was unleavened. Here is what Philo, a first-century Jewish scholar, wrote:

This unleavened cake is so sacred that it is enjoined in the holy scriptures, "to place in the innermost part of the temple, on the golden table, twelve loaves of unleavened bread, corresponding in number to the twelve tribes; and those loaves shall be called the shew-bread." And again, it is in the law expressly "forbidden to offer any leaven or any honey upon the altar;" for it is a difficult thing to consecrate as holy either the sweetnesses of the pleasures according to the body, or the light and unsubstantial elations of the soul, since they are by their own intrinsic nature profane and unholy. -- The Preliminary Studies, ch. XXIX (168-169)

This Jewish historian Josephus validates Philo's understanding pertaining to the shewbread. The following is taken from Antiquities of the Jews, Book III, chapter X, sect. 7:

However, out of the common charges, baked bread was set on the table of shewbread, without leaven, of twenty-four tenth deals of flour, for so much is spent upon this bread; two heaps of these were baked; they were baked the day before the Sabbath, but were brought into the holy place on the morning of the Sabbath, and set upon the holy table, six on a heap, one loaf still standing over-against another;

We thus have two ancient witnesses testifying that the shewbread was unleavened, even though the commonly-understood Greek word for "unleavened" (azumos) is not used in reference to that bread.

As for "artos" being used for "food of any kind," I think the same general principle applies to the Greek word that is applied to the English word. I remember in the 60's and 70's a common expression used by "hip folks" was, "Ya got any bread?" This meant, "Do you have any money?"

And then, of course, we are all familiar with the expression "breadwinner."

I hope this helps to better explain my position. I strongly believe the shewbread is symbolic of Yeshua's sinless body, which can only be eaten by His "priests," i.e., those who will be priests in His kingdom. I cannot, for conscience sake, partake of the memorial supper using leavened bread. Yeshua referred to Himself as "the bread which came down from heaven." I ask you: Was the "bread which came down from heaven" leavened?

Take care and may YHWH bless!

That was pretty interesting. And thanks for taking the time to explain all of that out.

Personally, I still don't see anything wrong with having leavened bread for the Memorial because I believe that is exactly what Yeshua had for the reasons I gave in my first post. You asked me: I ask you: Was the "bread which came down from heaven" leavened? I would have to say probably not but I don't see that that suddenly means one can't have leavened bread for Yeshua's Memorial meal since there is no command stating we can't.

The feast of unleavened bread starts on the 14th at even which is techinically the beginning of the 15th. And the feast of unleavened bread doesn't start until then. Yeshua didn't have the Passover in my personal opinion. He had a meal. And at that meal, he had leavened bread. So if a person makes the choice to do exactly as Yeshua did and have leavened bread that's acceptable.

If you can't partake of leavened bread during Yeshua's memorial service for conscience sake I can understand that, but my conscience doesn't convict me of such a thing considering there is no command in the Bible that says one cannot have leavened bread for the Memorial meal.

I would like to comment on some of the things you've mentioned in your postings. You wrote the following:

quote:

---

While I agree that leavening can, on occasion, be used to make some really neat illustrations, it is generally understood as being representative of sin, such as when Yeshua cautioned us to beware the "leavening of the Pharisees." This type of leavening is not desirable, especially as a memorial to Messiah. Since it is generally understood that leavening represents sin, and since it is established that Yeshua was without sin, I do not believe bread with leavening should be used to represent His body, unless you wish to consider Him a sinner, which my family and I choose not to do.

---

I reply: No doubt, the type leavening Yeshua described in Matthew 16 is not desirable, but it is not correct to say that to eat leavened bread for the Memorial Supper means that one is using the leaven bread as the type Yeshua described in Matthew 16. It definitely could be the leaven Yeshua described as the Kingdom of Heaven, in Matthew 13:33. Yeshua taught us that the kingdom of Yahweh is within (Luke 17:21), and when we allow this light of the kingdom to shine forth in a dark world (Matthew 5:16) it has the capability of "mixing" into the unleavened world; i.e. the world without the leaven of the kingdom.

Someone who uses leaven bread for the Master's Supper is not wishing to consider Yeshua as a sinner. That would be like me saying that someone who uses unleavened bread for the Master's Supper wishes to consider Yeshua an affliction (Deuteronomy 16:3); I would never make such an accusation. I understand the Scriptures to teach both a positive and negative connotation to both leavened and unleavened bread.

You continued by saying:

quote:

---

The fact is, the Greek word "artos" may be used to represent either leavened bread OR unleavened bread. To simply presume that it can only be a reference to leavened bread is a mistake. "Artos" is the Greek word used for the temple shewbread, not "azumos," yet it is commonly known and attested to by the ancients that the temple shewbread was unleavened. If anyone would like for me to cite examples of this, I'll be glad to look them up.

---

I reply:There is nothing in Scripture that says the shewbread was unleavened bread, although you did show a quotation from both Philo and Josephus which, using them, definitely lends credence to the idea that the shewbread was unleavened bread.

I do find it interesting that 1 Chronicles 23:28-29 makes a distinction between the shewbread and the unleavened cakes by saying:

Because their office was to wait on the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of Yahweh, in the courts, and in the chambers, and in the purifying of all holy things, and the work of the service of the house of Elohim; Both for the showbread, and for the fine flour for meat offering, and for the unleavened cakes, and for that which is baken in the pan, and for that which is fried, and for all manner of measure and size

What do you think of this?

You continued:

quote:

---

I also believe the temple shewbread was unleavened because it, too, represented the body of Yeshua ... pure and sinless.

---

I reply: Please give a Scripture which states that Yeshua is representative of the temple shewbread.

You then wrote:

quote:

---

Furthermore, I believe that whenever leavened bread was offered in sacrifice, it was not representative of Yeshua. I personally believe it was representative of the saints who, though sinners, are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. Here's the verse that Matthew J. cited:

Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto Yahweh. {Lev. 23:17}

Who are the "firstfruits unto YHWH"? I believe the answer is in Revelation 14:4:

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb withersoever He goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto the Almighty and to the Lamb.

Thus, if you wish to use leavened bread for the Memorial Supper, I can see doing it if you wish to memorialize those who are to be redeemed among men, but I cannot see doing so if you wish to memorialize the One who gave His sinless body to redeem us.

---

I reply:Why do you believe the leavened bread offered in sacrifice was only representative of the saints in Revelation 14:4, and not also Yeshua in 1 Corinthians 15:20, who is also called the firstfruits? Seeing that Yeshua is called the firstfruits in 1 Corinthians 15:20 there seems to be just as much right to say the leaven of Leviticus 23:17 is representative of him, especially seeing that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 mentions him rising on the third day according to the Scriptures.

It appears to me, Larry, that you are making the mistake of reading "sin" into everywhere the word leaven appears in the Bible. This is not correct. You should only see "leaven of sin" if the context depicts the leaven as such, as in Matthew 16. Leviticus 7:13; 23:17; & Matthew 13:33 all show positive aspects of leaven - good leaven. When Yeshua enters into our lives through accepting him as Master and Savior (Rom. 10:9-10) he (the good leaven) raises us up to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:1-5).

In conclusion, to memorialize Yeshua's body with leavened bread is not sinful at all, no more than using unleavened bread means you believe he is an affliction (Deut. 16:3) to you. All debate could have ceased had the Greek word azumos been used in reference to the Master's Supper, but rather the word artos was used, and the word artos can, and at least for the most part does refer to leavened bread.

Your friend,
Matthew Janzen

quote:

---

Leviticus 7:13; 23:17; & Matthew 13:33 all show positive aspects of leaven - good leaven. When Yeshua enters into our lives through accepting him as Master and Savior (Rom. 10:9-10) he (the good leaven) raises us up to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:1-5).

---

I've been chewing on your first post, but have not swallowed it yet. I have always believed leaven is never a good thing in Scripture. I would not consider Yahshua as "good leaven", but as a deleavening agent. We are totally leavened when he enters us, but then he changes us into a new unleavened creature. As we walk with him, we can allow leaven to enter in and corrupt us again or we can walk in the Spirit and remain leaven free.

I would like to explain my understanding of Mt.13:33 to help you understand where I'm coming from.

The "woman" symbolizes a false religious system as it does in Revelation. The "leaven" symbolizes evil, false doctrine, sin, etc. The woman "hid" the leaven in "three measures of meal". The "meal" symbolizes the sweet, unleavened fellowship the early assembly had with Yahweh. The woman did not simply place the leaven in the meal in the hopes of producing a good loaf of bread. The evil woman secretly, craftily "hid" the leaven within the early assembly of believers when no one was looking just as the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. Eventually, the whole lump became corrupted resulting in a leavened lump known as Christendom.

This interpretation is in keeping with the majority of Kingdom parables given in Matthew 13. The Wheat and Tares, The Mustard Seed, The Leaven, and the Fish Net all teach us that much of what people call the Kingdom of Heaven will be corrupted and discarded when Messiah returns. His true people are being called out of that system as they undergo a reversal of the leavening process which only Yahweh can accomplish.

The two wave loaves in Lev.23:17 refer to the first fruits of men that will be resurrected. They are baked with leaven to show that these saints will be accepted by Yahweh even though they may yet be prone to sin or false doctrine. They are also baked with leaven to clearly distinguish between this grain offering representing men and the unleavened grain offering in Lev.23:13 representing Yahshua.

As for Lev.7:13, both leavened and unleavened cakes were offered with the thanksgiving/peace offering. Yet, the leavened cakes could not accompany the sacrifice of the thanksgiving offering upon the altar (Lev.2:11). To me this says, "Yahweh, please accept my offerings (blood and unleavened bread) both representing Yahshua on my behalf and please accept my leavened offering representing myself even in my sinful state as a living offering unto you."

I understand that "artos" was eaten by Yahshua the night he was betrayed, but it is not clear whether or not that word can also refer to unleavened bread. Even if it doesn't, I think I would continue using unleavened bread. "Leaven" destroys the sweetness of an unleavened lump. Yeast is a fungus that converts bread sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide. The leavening effect of the yeast depends on its destruction of a nourishing and flavorful food. As an agent of destruction and decay, leaven is a fitting symbol for something evil.

The verses I was referring to are found in Lev.8; in particular, verse 26. "One cake of bread" is lechem. [not sure if Greek, here, is artos].

"kai apo tou kanou thv teleiwsewv tou ontov enanti kuriou elaben arton ena azumon kai arton ex elaiou ena kai laganon en kai epeyhken epi to stear kai ton braciona ton dexion"

The English reads;

"And out of the basket of unleavened bread, that was before the LORD, he took one unleavened cake, and a cake of oiled bread, and one wafer, and put them on the fat, and upon the right shoulder:"

Everything mentioned in verse 26 was unleavened and therefore lawful to burn on the altar, including "a cake of oiled bread", "kai arton ex elaiou ena." It seems "arton" is used here in reference to an unleavened cake.

Shalom,
John

I believe that the "artos" eaten at Yahshua's last Passover Meal was the same kind of "artos" that was eaten later on the 1st day of the week (or beginning of the 2nd) by Yahshua and the 2 disciples from the Emmaus Road:

quote:

---

Lu 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs...
Lu 24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread <740=artos>, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
Lu 24:35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread <740=artos>.

---

I believe that the so-called Master's supper was the Passover, because all 4 Gospels indicate that it was (3 of them in Yahshua's own words).

In Num.9:11 (as well as nearly all other references to the Passover), the phrase "at even" is really "between the evenings", which Ex.16 shows to be after sunset, at the beginning of the day. This is why i believe the Passover was sacrificed between sunset and dark at the begining of the 14th, and eaten in "that night" (still the 14th).

While i'm uncertain of some of the timing, i can't see any holes in my explanation of "artos". If anyone believes that the bread (artos) they ate in Luke 24:30 was leavened, please explain why.

I would like to respond to your latest post, which takes the position that all mentionings of leaven in Scripture are negative. I hope to be able to show you that this is not an accurate position, or hopefully you can help persuade me out of doctrinal error.

You wrote:

quote:

---

I would like to explain my understanding of Mt.13:33 to help you understand where I'm coming from.

The "woman" symbolizes a false religious system as it does in Revelation. The "leaven" symbolizes evil, false doctrine, sin, etc. The woman "hid" the leaven in "three measures of meal". The "meal" symbolizes the sweet, unleavened fellowship the early assembly had with Yahweh. The woman did not simply place the leaven in the meal in the hopes of producing a good loaf of bread. The evil woman secretly, craftily "hid" the leaven within the early assembly of believers when no one was looking just as the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. Eventually, the whole lump became corrupted resulting in a leavened lump known as Christendom.

---

I reply: I do not see this woman in Matthew 13 symbolizing a false religious system. As you mentioned further down in your post, the parable of the mustard seed is mentioned directly before this parable concerning leaven. Yeshua speaks of a mustard seed being the smallest of all seeds, yet after it is sown it becomes larger than all other herbs, and becomes a tree. Do you honestly think this mustard seed symbolizes evil? I cannot see how this could be, when the parallel passages in Matthew 17:20 and Luke 17:6 speak of believers needing to have faith as a grain of a mustard seed, obviously a good thing. We may also note both Mark 4:30-31 and Luke 13:18-19 which show that the mustard seed depicts something good and not something evil.

The same would then apply for the parable that goes right along with the mustard seed - the parable of the leaven. It is the Kingdom of Heaven that is like leaven; not wickedness that is like leaven and inserted into the Kingdom, but the Kingdom itself is like leaven. I feel that commentator Adam Clark comments on this verse well when he writes:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven — On the nature and effects of leaven, see the note on Exodus 12:8. As the property of leaven is to change, or assimulate to its own nature, the meal or dough with which it is mixed, so the property of the grace of Christ is to change the whole soul into its own likeness; and God intends that this principle should continue in the soul till all is leavened—till the whole bear the image of the heavenly, as it before bore the image of the earthly. Both these parables are prophetic, and were intended to show, principally, how, from very small beginnings, the Gospel of Christ should pervade all the nations of the world, and fill them with righteousness and true holiness.

You also wrote:

quote:

---

The two wave loaves in Lev.23:17 refer to the first fruits of men that will be resurrected. They are baked with leaven to show that these saints will be accepted by Yahweh even though they may yet be prone to sin or false doctrine. They are also baked with leaven to clearly distinguish between this grain offering representing men and the unleavened grain offering in Lev.23:13 representing Yahshua.

---

I reply: It is not proper to assume that Leviticus 23:17 refers to the firstfruits of men that will be resurrected. How do you know it refers to the first fruits of men? You continue to say that the leaven mentioned represents the sin in the lives of these men. How do you know this? You cite no Bible verse linking the two together.

Proper exegesis of Leviticus 23:17 would simply yield believing that this firstfruit offering of wheat, was an offering Yahweh commanded, and thus accepted. It was to be baked with leaven, showing that there is nothing inherently sinful about leaven itself.

I do believe that Yeshua is the anti-type of the wavesheaf that was waved on Aviv 16, but this is because of what is written in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 - he would rise the third day according to the Scriptures. The only Scripture I know of which speaks of or implies a third day resurrection is the 14 - 15 - 16 sequence in Leviticus 23 of the Passover sacrifice (14), the Sabbath (15), and the wavesheaf (16). That's day 1, 2, and 3.

You also wrote:

quote:

---

As for Lev.7:13, both leavened and unleavened cakes were offered with the thanksgiving/peace offering. Yet, the leavened cakes could not accompany the sacrifice of the thanksgiving offering upon the altar (Lev.2:11). To me this says, "Yahweh, please accept my offerings (blood and unleavened bread) both representing Yahshua on my behalf and please accept my leavened offering representing myself even in my sinful state as a living offering unto you."

---

I reply: Leviticus 7:13 shows that leavened bread was offered in the peace offering, therefore Yahweh accepts such an offering, as He is the one who commanded it.

It is the meat offering that should not be made with leaven, but that doesn't prove anything negative about leaven, for we just saw that the peace offering (Lev. 7:13) was to be offered with leavened bread. Furthermore, if Leviticus 2:11 proves a negativity about leaven then it would prove a negativitiy about honey too, seeing they are both mentioned in the same verse.

You concluded by saying:

quote:

---

I understand that "artos" was eaten by Yahshua the night he was betrayed, but it is not clear whether or not that word can also refer to unleavened bread. Even if it doesn't, I think I would continue using unleavened bread. "Leaven" destroys the sweetness of an unleavened lump. Yeast is a fungus that converts bread sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide. The leavening effect of the yeast depends on its destruction of a nourishing and flavorful food. As an agent of destruction and decay, leaven is a fitting symbol for something evil.

---

I reply: I have yet to see anything conclusive in Scripture that shows artos to mean unleavened bread. I think Yahweh put (by His Spirit) a distinct difference between the terms artos and azumos.

It does not matter how bad we want to make leaven sound, there is still positive uses and aspects of leaven in the Bible, and it should be our authority. Will we believe Yeshua? Did he really mean that the Kingdom of Heaven was like leaven? Or should he have said it was like unleavened?