Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

[Riddikulus]

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine.  I return to that new lump of Christ:

Do I have this right?

So in simple terms; the use of unleavened bread harks back to the old covenant, as if a reenactment, not matter how loosely, of the Jewish Seder; and that is binding man to that Old covenant system of law keeping. Even in the slightest law keeping, it's as if Christ's Incarnation has made no difference. However, in looking to the New covenant, man has stepped out of the bonds of the Old. The use of leavened bread speaks of Christ as the Leaven of the New Covenant (is that a proper thing to say?) whereby man is free of the law; a new creature through Christ?

Whether Christ was actually celebrating the Passover with unleavened bread or not really isn't the point. We aren't attempting to repeat a historical Jewish Seder with the Eucharist. As Ignatius said earlier, "the only way to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder."  

I hope this makes sense.  

[ialmisry]

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine.  I return to that new lump of Christ:

Do I have this right?

So in simple terms; the use of unleavened bread harks back to the old covenant, as if a reenactment, not matter how loosely, of the Jewish Seder; and that is binding man to that Old covenant system of law keeping. Even in the slightest law keeping, it's as if Christ's Incarnation has made no difference. However, in looking to the New covenant, man has stepped out of the bonds of the Old. The use of leavened bread speaks of Christ as the Leaven of the New Covenant (is that a proper thing to say?) whereby man is free of the law; a new creature through Christ?

Whether Christ was actually celebrating the Passover with unleavened bread or not really isn't the point. We aren't attempting to repeat a historical Jewish Seder with the Eucharist. As Ignatius said earlier, "the only way to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder."  

I hope this makes sense.  

Perfect sense.

[Rafa999]

That icon of Christ tempted by Satan looks amazing. Do you know the author Isa?

It's Duccio di Buoninsegna.

Thanks.

[Riddikulus]

Ialmisry,

Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

you mean with the old leaven of Judaism, which we haven't gotten to yet (step-sonship called this time): Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.  For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

And the Spirit has leavened that Faith through the episcopacy shared by St. Paul and St. John, the leaven of the Kingdom of Heaven and the Apostolic Doctrine.  I return to that new lump of Christ:

Do I have this right?

So in simple terms; the use of unleavened bread harks back to the old covenant, as if a reenactment, not matter how loosely, of the Jewish Seder; and that is binding man to that Old covenant system of law keeping. Even in the slightest law keeping, it's as if Christ's Incarnation has made no difference. However, in looking to the New covenant, man has stepped out of the bonds of the Old. The use of leavened bread speaks of Christ as the Leaven of the New Covenant (is that a proper thing to say?) whereby man is free of the law; a new creature through Christ?

Whether Christ was actually celebrating the Passover with unleavened bread or not really isn't the point. We aren't attempting to repeat a historical Jewish Seder with the Eucharist. As Ignatius said earlier, "the only way to look at the Eucharist is as a foretaste of that Heavenly Banquet with Our Lord and not as a Jewish Seder."  

I hope this makes sense.  

Perfect sense.

Cool! 

[Rafa999]

I challenge a protestant to explain away this verse:

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7

Is the Eucharist symbolic, just plain unleavened bread or the flesh and blood of the Messiah? Do we have life by eating his flesh and drinking his blood or not? Explain away.

[ialmisry]

Continuing with the Golden-mouthed...


In dealing with pastoral theology, St. Paul teaches them humility, "to which effect" he makes the off hand comment which has become the subject of this thread:

[5.] Then, having ended his sentence, and spoken it in brief without dwelling on it, he brings in again a rebuke, directing himself against them;

Ver. 6. “Your glorying is not good:”

signifying that it was they up to the present time who had hindered him from repenting, by taking pride in him. Next he shews that he is taking this step in order to spare not that person only, but also those to whom he writes. To which effect he adds,

“Know ye not, that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”

“For,” saith he, “though the offence be his, yet if neglected it hath power to waste the rest of the body of the Church also. For when the first transgressor escapes punishment, speedily will others also commit the same faults.”

Here the issue of leaven comes up for the first time, and does show to show how like leaven, sin and (as he immediately refers) grace have the power to go from a speck to the whole.  It is in this context that communion comes up for discussion, the leavening power of the leavened Eucharist, from which the Church at Corinth is told to purge out from that lump the old leaven, least it spread and cut Corinth off from Catholic communion:

In these words he indicates moreover that their struggle and their danger is for the whole Church, not for any one person. For which purpose he needeth also the similitude of the leaven. For “as that,” saith he, “though it be but little, transforms unto its own nature the whole lump; so also this man, if he be let go unpunished and this sin turn out unavenged, will corrupt likewise all the rest.”

however, least he be misunderstood as recommending that emptying without a fullness to follow (as happened with the exercised demon, coming back with 7 spirits worse than itself) St. Paul immediately turns the proverb on its head, and in line with the Eucharistic practice of the Church as opposed to the Passover practice of the Rabbis:

Ver. 7. “Purge out the old leaven,”

that is, this evil one. Not that he speaketh concerning this one only; rather he glances at others with him. For, “the old leaven” is not fornication only, but also sin of every kind. And he said not, “purge,” but “purge out;” “cleanse with accuracy so that there be not so much as a remnant nor a shadow of that sort.” In saying then, “purge out,” he signifies that there was still iniquity among them. But in saying, “that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened,” he affirms and declares that not over very many was the wickedness prevailing. But though he saith, “as ye are unleavened,” he means it not as a fact that all were clean, but as to what sort of people you ought to be.

Note old leaven, not bare "leaven," a point which St. John will pick up. If he had meant to refer to an alleged fact that the bread, er, azyme (again, ἄρτος "bread" is NOT, at least in this context of Passover, used for mazzot) of our feasting is unleavened, he would have cited the proverb and left it at "purge out the leaven": new leaven has no place in Passover observations that I know of on the 8th day.  Instead he puts a new twist on the proverb on the power of leaven and on the mandate of Passover.  Whereas under the old law the mention of leaven during Passover was only in the context of the offender being "cut off from Israel" (i.e. excommunicated), here St. Paul will immediately, in parallel, bring up the issue of partaking of new leaven.  The Apostles did prepare to eat the Passover in the Upper Room, furnished and prepared by purging out the old leaven.  But instead of eating the last of the old leaven, as done under the Old Law, the new High Priest bringing the change in the law by the sacrifice of the real Paschal Lamb had them eat the new lump of that sacrifice, that they might be raised as He rose into the Kingdom of Heaven:

[6.] “For our Passover also hath been sacrificed for us, even Christ; wherefore let us keep the feast: not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” So also Christ called His doctrine Leaven. And further he himself dwells upon the metaphor, reminding them of an ancient history, and of the Passover and unleavened bread, and of their blessings both then and now, and their punishments and their plagues.

As pointed that whereas "to eat the Passover (lamb)" is an expression for to celebrate Passover in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek, there is no expression "to eat mazzoth/azymes" which means "to celebrate Passover."  Here, your proof text "let us keep the feast....with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" St. John immediately puts in its context: "So also Christ called His doctrine Leaven."  Is His doctrine not sincerity and truth?

It is festival, therefore, the whole time in which we live. For though he said, “Let us keep the feast,” not with a view to the presence of the Passover or of Pentecost did he say it; but as pointing out that the whole of time is a festival unto Christians, because of the excellency of the good things which have been given. For what hath not come to pass that is good?  The Son of God was made man for thee; He freed thee from death; and called thee to a kingdom. Thou therefore who hast obtained and art still obtaining such things, how can it be less than thy duty to “keep the feast” all thy life? Let no one then be downcast about poverty, and disease, and craft of enemies. For it is a festival, even the whole of our time. Wherefore saith Paul, (Philip. iv. 4.) “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, Rejoice.” Upon the festival days no one puts on filthy garments. Neither then let us do so. For a marriage hath been made, a spiritual marriage. For, “the kingdom of Heaven,” saith He, “is likened unto a certain king which would make (St. Matt. xxii. 1.) a marriage feast for his son.” Now where it is a king making a marriage, and a marriage for his son, what can be greater than this feast?  Let no one then enter in clad in rags. Not about garments is our discourse but about unclean actions. For if where all wore bright apparel one alone, being found at the marriage in filthy garments, was cast out with dishonor, consider how great strictness and purity the entrance into that marriage feast requires.

The Prostentants seem to exceeded their Vatican master in insisting that leaven is always a bad thing in Scripture (like the foolish interpretation that the Parable of the Leaven is that the nominal Christians make the Church seem larger than she is).  In Deuteronomy the unleavened bread is called "the Bread of Affliction," the opposite of Christian joy, ironically one of the verses twisted to promote the idea that ἄρτος-the only term (rather technical and specific) used to refer to the Mystical Supper-means unleavened as well as leavened bread.  Not to mention this passage, where St. Paul will refer to the new lump of leaven of Christ's Apostles.  Back in Genesis, it is "evening and morning, one day...etc." until the Seventh day, where there is no "evening and morning, day seven" because that day lasted until Christ kept the Sabbath resting in the tomb, when the seventh day ended and the eighth day of Creation, the First Day of the New Creation dawned with the rising of the New Adam, the new leaven of life to purge out the old leaven of the Old Adam.  We do not eat the "bread of afflication," but the Bread of life, the Bread of the joy of the Marriage Feast (the reason why DL is not celebrated during Lent on weekdays, because of the afflications that (hopefully) cause our repentence, but is still always celebrated during Lent on Sunday, the "Little Pascha.").  We do not eat the Eucharist in haste fleeing the pursuing tyrant, but with patience awaiting the return of the Savior. Hence unleavened cakes have no place in Christian festival.

[7.] However, not on this account only does he remind them of the “unleavened bread,” but also to point out the affinity of the Old Testament with the New; and to point out also that it was impossible, after the “unleavened bread,” again to enter into Egypt; but if any one chose to return, he would suffer the same things as did they. For those things were a shadow of these; however obstinate the Jew may be. Wherefore shouldest thou enquire of him, he will speak, no great thing, rather it is great which he will speak of, but nothing like what we speak of: because he knows not the truth. For he for his part will say, “the Egyptians who detained us were so changed by the Almighty that they themselves urged and drave us out, who before held us forcibly; they did not suffer us so much as to leaven our dough.” But if a man asketh me, he shall hear not of Egypt nor of Pharaoh; but of our deliverance from the deceit of demons and the darkness of the devil: not of Moses but of the Son of God; not of a Red Sea but of a Baptism overflowing with ten thousand blessings, where the “old man” is drowned.

Such should put to rest the idea that St. Paul is here advocating or refering to retension of Judaic practices.  To paraphrase St. Paul again, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye eat azymes, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that eats azymes, that he is a debtor to do the whole law...."where he brings up this same proverb on leaven (Galations 5), specifically to combat the heresy of Judaising, the heresy of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herod.  It is odd how Protestants, having rejected the Traditon of the Church, turn to the veiled rabbis to explain the OT, a point St. John makes:

Again, shouldest thou ask the Jew why he expels all leaven from all his borders; here he will even be silent and will not so much as state any reason. And this is because, although some indeed of the circumstances were both types of things to come, and also due to things then happening; yet others were not so, that the Jews might not deal deceitfully; that they might not abide in the shadow. For tell me, what is the meaning of the Lamb’s being a “Male,” and “Unblemished,” and a “year old,” and of, “a bone shall not be broken?” and what means the command to call the neighbors also, (Exod. xii. 4.) and that it should be eaten “standing” and “in the evening;” or the fortifying the house with blood? He will have nothing else to say but over and over all about Egypt. But I can tell you the meaning both of the Blood, and of the Evening, and the Eating all together, and of the rule that all should be standing.

As you claim, Scripture cannot be broken: How can he who at length writes how the Jews do not understand Moses who is read in their synagogues, and who says of their law that it is "ready to vanish away," how can he be construed as advocating, in this off hand comment, the retention of the vestiges of the Old Law? As St. John expounds on St. Paul's other use of this proverb:"Gal. 5:9. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” And thus this slight error, he says, if not corrected, will have power (as the leaven has with the lump) to lead you into complete Judaism."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.v.html

[8.]But first let us explain why the leaven is cast  out of all their borders. What then is the hidden meaning? The believer must be freed from all iniquity. For as among them he perishes with whomsoever is found old leaven, so also with us wheresoever is found iniquity: since of course the punishment being so great in that which is a shadow, in our case it cannot choose but be much greater. For if they so carefully clear their houses of leaven, and pry into mouse-holes; much more ought we to search through the soul so as to cast out every unclean thought.

So yes, St. Paul makes use of this imagery of the purging of the leaven, known to all, not to refer to the Church's practice, but as a concrete example of what the Old law did as type of what the New Covenant does in reality. As St. John points out, St. Paul cannot be refering to what Christians should do as to purging leaven, a fact made clearer by the Jews of St. John's day:

This however was done by them of late; but now no longer. For every where there is leaven, where a Jew is found. For it is in the midst of cities that the feast of unleavened bread is kept: a thing which is now rather a game at play than a law. For since the Truth is come, the Types have no longer any place.

So much for your ancient validation.

It seems he may be talking about customs like bittul (nullifying the leaven) and mekhirah (selling leaven to the Pesakh goy).  But the real issue is that the Jews are clinging to the shadow, much like the High Priest (John 18:28) clung to the letter of the law, so he could eat the abolished passover while leading the true Passover to slaughter.  Since Christians have the Truth to which the Types pointed, why would they look back, except as an example?

So that by means of this example also he mightily drives the fornicator out of the Church. For, saith he, so far from his presence profiting, he even doth harm, injuring the common estate of the body. For one knows not whence is the evil savor while the corrupt part is concealed, and so one imputes it to the whole. Wherefore he urges upon them strongly to “purge out the leaven, that ye may be,” saith he, “a new lump, even as ye are unleavened.”

And then, the pièce de résistance and coup de grâce:

“For our Passover hath been sacrificed for us even Christ.” He said not, hath died, but more in point to the subject in hand, “hath been sacrificed.” Seek not then unleavened bread of this kind, since neither hast thou a lamb of the same kind. Seek not leaven of this description, seeing that thine unleavened bread is not such as this.

In other words, as he says elsewhere, "what is old is ready to vanish away," like the old leaven of the law and of the old Adam alike. As with his use of the same proverb in Galatians, St. Paul is here calling the Christians to hold to what does not pass away:

[9.] Thus, in the case of material leaven, the unleavened might become leavened, but never the reverse; whereas here there is a chance of the direct contrary occuring. This however he has not plainly declared:  and observe his good sense. In the former Epistle he gives the fornicator no hope of return, but orders that his whole life should be spent in repentance, lest he should make him less energetic through the promise. For he said not, “Deliver him up to Satan,” that having repented he might be commended again unto the Church. But what saith he? “That he may be saved in the last day.” For he conducts him on unto that time in order to make him full of anxiety. And what favors he intended him after the repentance, he reveals not, imitating his own Master. For as God saith, (Jonah iii. 4. lxx: rec. text, “forty days.”) “Yet three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” and added not, “but if she repent she shall be saved:” so also he did not say here, “But if he repent worthily, we will ‘confirm our love towards him.’” (2 Cor. ii. 8.). But he waits for him to do the work that so he may then receive the favor. For if he had said this at the beginning he might have set him free from the fear. Wherefore he not only does not so, but by the instance of leaven allows him not even a hope of return, but reserves him unto that day: “Purge out (so he says) the old leaven;” and, “let us not keep the feast with old leaven.” But as soon as he had repented, he brought him in again with all earnestness.

And so St. John, dealing with the topic of St. Paul's discourse, also answers your question on the proof text ripped out of context: the image of the unleavened is used only in the context of the imagery of puring the loaf of the Church of the old leaven so that the leaven of Christ alone may rise in us. Otherwise, he would not have juxtaposed the leaven of Christ with the unleavened cakes of sincerity and truth, and would not have explicitely identifed the leaven to be purged as "old":

[10.] But why does he call it “old?” Either because our former life was of this sort, or because that which is old is “ready to vanish away,” (Heb. viii. 13.) and is unsavory and foul; which is the nature of sin. For He neither simply finds fault with the old, nor simply praises the new, but with reference to the subject matter. And thus elsewhere He saith, (Ecclus. ix. 15.) “New wine is as a new friend: but if it become old, then with pleasure shalt thou drink it:” in the case of friendship bestowing his praise rather upon the old than the new. And again, “The Ancient of days sat,” (Dan. vii. 9.) here again, taking the term “ancient” as among those laudatory expressions which confer highest glory. Elsewhere the Scripture takes the term “old” in the sense of blame; for seeing that the things are of various aspect as being composed of many parts, it uses the same words both in a good and an evil import, not according to the same shade of meaning. Of which you may see an instance in the blame cast elsewhere on the old: (Ps. xvii. 46. ap. LXX.) “They waxed old, and they halted from their paths.” And again, (Ps. vi. 7. ap. LXX.) “I have become old in the midst of all mine enemies.” And again, (Dan. xiii. 52. Hist. Susan.) “O thou that art become old in evil days.” So also the “Leaven” is often taken for the kingdom of Heaven, although here found fault with. But in that place it is used with one aspect, and in this with another

.

Hence the fact that he exhorts them to be a "new lump" shows that he does not call them to remain unleavened.  Hence the use of bread, that is leavened, living bread, in Christian feasts.

[ialmisry]

St. Paul's remark on leaven was only an excurses in the midst of a passage on moral theology, and so St. John returns to the real subject at hand (I'm posting the rest of the sermon, for completeness sake):

[11.] But I have a strong conviction that the saying about the leaven refers also to the priests who suffer a vast deal of the old leaven to be within, not purging out from their borders, that is, out of the Church, the covetous, the extortioners, and whatsoever would exclude from the kingdom of Heaven. For surely covetousness is an “old leaven;” and whenever it lights and into whatsoever house it enters, makes it unclean: and though you may gain but little by your injustice, it leavens the whole of your substance. Wherefore not seldom the dishonest gain being little, hath cast out the stock honestly laid up however abundant. For nothing is more rotten than covetousness. You may fasten up that man’s closet with key, and door, and bolt: you do all in vain, whilst you shut up within covetousness, the worst of robbers, and able to carry off all.

“But what,” say you, “if there are many covetous who do not experience this?” In the first place, they will experience it, though their experience come not immediately. And should they now escape, then do thou fear it the more: for they are reserved for greater punishment. Add to this, that in the event of themselves escaping, yet those who inherit their wealth will have the same to endure. “But how can this be just,” you will say? It is quite just. For he that has succeeded to an inheritance; full of injustice, though he have committed no rapine himself, detains nevertheless the property of others; and is perfectly aware of this; and it is fair he should suffer for it. For if this or that person had robbed and you received a thing, and then the owner came and demanded it back; would it avail you in defence to say that you had not seized it?  By no means. For what would be your plea when accused! tell me. That it was another who seized it? Well: but you are keeping possession. That it was he who robbed? But you are enjoying it. Why these rules even the laws of the heathen recognise, which acquitting those who have seized and stolen, bid you demand satisfaction from those persons in whose possession you happen to find your things all laid up.

If then you know who are the injured, restore and do what Zacchæus did, with much increase. But if you know not, I offer you another way yet; I do not preclude you from the remedy. Distribute all these things to the poor: and thus you will mitigate the evil.

But if some have transmitted these things even to children and descendants, still in retribution they have suffered other disasters.

[12.] And why speak I of things in this present life? In that day at any rate will none of these things be said, when both appear naked, both the spoiled and the spoilers. Or rather not alike naked. Of riches indeed both will be equally stripped; but the one will be full of the charges to which they gave occasion. What then shall we do on that day, when before the dread tribunal he that hath been evil entreated and lost his all is brought forward into the midst, and you have no one to speak a word for you? What will you say to the Judge? Now indeed you may be able even to corrupt the judgment, being but of men; but in that court and at that time, it will be no longer so: no, nor yet now will you be able. For even at this moment that tribunal is present: since God both seeth our doings and is near unto the injured, though not invoked: it being certain that whoever suffers wrong, however in himself unworthy to obtain any redress, yet nevertheless seeing that what is done pleases not God, he hath most assuredly one to avenge him.

“How then,” you will say, “is such an one well off, who is wicked?” Nay, it will not be so unto the end. Hear what saith the Prophet; (Ps. xxxvii. 1, 2.) “Fret not thyself because of the evil doers, because as grass they shall quickly wither away.” For where, tell me, where is he who wrought rapine, after his departure hence? Where are his bright hopes!  Where his august name? Are they not all passed and gone? Is it not a dream and a shadow, all that was his? And this you must expect in the case of every such person, both in his own person while living, and in that of him who shall come after him. But not such is the state of the saints, nor will it be possible for you to say the same things in their case also, that it is shadow and a dream and a tale, what belongs to them.

[13.] And if you please, he who spake these things, the tent-maker, the Cilician, the man whose very parentage is unknown, let him be the example we produce. You will say, “How is it possible to become such as he was?” Do you then thoroughly desire it? Are you thoroughly anxious to become such? “Yes,” you will say. Well then, go the same way as he went and they that were with him. Now what way went he? One saith, (2 Cor. xi. 27.) “In hunger, and thirst, and nakedness.” Another, (Acts iii. 6.) “Silver and gold I have none.” Thus they “had nothing and yet possessed all things.” (2 Cor. vi. 10.) What can be nobler than this saying? what more blessed or more abundant in riches?  Others indeed pride themselves on the contrary things, saying, “I have this or that number of talents of gold, and acres of land without end, and houses, and slaves;” but this man on his being naked of all things; and he shrinks not from poverty, (which is the feeling of the unwise,) nor hides his face, but he even wears it as an ornament.

Where now be the rich men, they who count up their interest simple and compound, they who take from all men and are never satisfied? Have ye heard the voice of Peter, that voice which sets forth poverty as the mother of wealth? That voice which has nothing, yet is wealthier than those who wear diadems?  For this is that voice, which having nothing, raised the dead, and set upright the lame, and drove away devils, and bestowed such gracious gifts, as those who are clad in the purple robe and lead the mighty and terrible legions never were able to bestow. This is the voice of those who are now removed into heaven, of those who have attained unto that height.

[14.] Thus it is possible that he who hath nothing may possess all men’s goods. Thus may he who possesses nothing acquire the goods of all: whereas, were we to get all men’s goods, we are bereft of all. Perhaps this saying seems to be a paradox; but it is not. “But,” you will say, “how does he who hath nothing possess all men’s goods? Doth he not have much more who hath what belongs to all?” By no means: but the contrary. For he who hath nothing commands all, even as they did. And throughout the world all houses were open to them, and they who offered them took their coming as a favor, and they came to them as to friends and kindred.  For so they came to the woman who was a seller of purple, (Acts xvi. 14.) and she like a servant set before them what she had. And to the keeper of the prison; and he opened to them all his house. And to innumerable others. Thus they had all things and had nothing: for (Acts iv. 32.) “they said that none of the things which they possessed was their own;” therefore all things were theirs. For he that considers all things to be common, will not only use his own, but also the things of others as if they belonged to him. But he that parts things off and sets himself as master over his own only, will not be master even of these. And this is plain from an example. He who possesses nothing at all, neither house, nor table, nor garment to spare, but for God’s sake is bereft of all, uses the things which are in common as his own; and he shall receive from all whatsoever he may desire, and thus he that hath nothing possesses the things of all. But he that hath some things, will not be master even of these. For first, no one will give to him that hath possessions; and, secondly, his property shall belong to robbers and thieves and informers and changing events and be any body’s rather than his. Paul, for instance, went up and down throughout all the world, 89carrying nothing with him, though he went neither unto friends nor kindred. Nay, at first he was a common enemy to all: but nevertheless he had all men’s goods after he had made good his entrance. But Ananias and Sapphira, hastening to gain a little more than their own, lost all together with life itself. Withdraw then from thine own, that thou mayest use others’ goods as thine own.

[15.] But I must stop: I know not how I have been carried into such a transport in speaking such words as these unto men who think it a great thing to impart but ever so little of their own. Wherefore let these my words have been spoken to the perfect. But to the more imperfect, this is what we may say, Give of what you have unto the needy. Increase your substance. For, saith He, (Prov. xix. 17.) “He that giveth unto the poor, lendeth unto God.” But if you are in a hurry and wait not for the time of recompense, think of those who lend money to men: for not even these desire to get their interest immediately; but they are anxious that the principal should remain a good long while in the hands of the borrower, provided only the repayment be secure and they have no mistrust of the borrower. Let this be done then in the present case also. Leave them with God that He may pay thee thy wages manifold. Seek not to have the whole here; for if you recover it all here, how will you receive it back there? And it is on this account that God stores them up there, inasmuch as this present life is full of decay. But He gives even here also; for, “Seek ye,” saith He, “the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (St. Matt. vi. 33.) Well then, let us look towards the kingdom, and not be in a hurry for the repayment of the whole, lest we diminish our recompense. But let us wait for the fit season. For the interest in these cases is not of that kind, but is such as is meet to be given to God. This then having collected together in great abundance, so let us depart hence, that we may obtain both the present and the future blessings; through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom unto the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for evermore. Amen.

Amen! indeed!  Much to think of as we enter the Great Fast...

[Altar Server]

Speaking about the future, what about the baby?

7 lbs. 4 oz. 20 1/2 inches... born on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Feb. 2nd 2010

Aidan Michael

The Orthodox Priest came by yesterday to give my wife the Blessing of Mother after Birthing... (I don't know that actual name of he prayer). It was wonderful! He is also coming on the eighth day to discuss with us in more detail the significance of the Naming Rite...

Congrats

[Cleopas]

Ialmisry,

That's an awful lot of effort and trouble to go through to try and make "keep the feast with the unleavened bread" actually mean "keep the feast with the newly leavened bread". Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.

BTW, are you familiar with the common custom in that day of using a pinch of leavened dough from a previous batch as the leavening agent in a fresh batch of dough? If not I suggest you look into it a bit, as that is a far more likely an natural understanding Paul on the "new lump" concept.

Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.

[ialmisry]

Ialmisry,

That's an awful lot of effort and trouble to go through to try and make "keep the feast with the unleavened bread" actually mean "keep the feast with the newly leavened bread". Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.

Then what do you do with that "new lump?" And are you saying the Jews were celebrating their feast with old leaven?

Take it up with someone who actually reaceived the teaching from St. Paul himself, Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch:

I just came across this reading St. Ignatius of Antioch to Magnesians 9-10:

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death— whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master— how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, having come, raised them from the dead...Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.

BTW, are you familiar with the common custom in that day of using a pinch of leavened dough from a previous batch as the leavening agent in a fresh batch of dough? If not I suggest you look into it a bit, as that is a far more likely an natural understanding Paul on the "new lump" concept.

I am familiar with it for two main reasons (I don't bake bread, so I don't know it accept from reading about those who do ). 1) reading the medieval accounts of Jewish practice to clearing the leaven prohibits that bit from being in their possession (I don't recall if they discuss where the new leaven comes from afterwards) 2) the old belief of the East Syrians of the Holy Leaven, that the leaven that they use for their eucharist (using the method you speak of) ultimately comes from that used at the institution of the Mystical Supper by Our Lord in the Upper Room.
Nestorian questions on the Eucharist By Willem Cornelis Unnik
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYdJwrUEe3gC&pg=PA246&dq=Nestorians+leaven&cd=6#v=onepage&q=Nestorians%20leaven&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=cnURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA161&dq=Nestorians+leaven&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Nestorians%20leaven&f=false

Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.

Jesus I know, and Paul I know, and Ignatius I know, but who are you?

[Cleopas]

Then what do you do with that "new lump?" And are you saying the Jews were celebrating their feast with old leaven?

Nothing. It causes me no problems. What should I do with it, or what problem should it cause my argument?

A new lump is just that, new. As long as you don't go leavening it, or can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough, you can keep the lump new and unleavened. No problem at all.

Jesus I know, and Paul I know, and Ignatius I know, but who are you?

Wow! Don't be so harsh on yourself. I have not demonized you, why demonize yourself? 

[ialmisry]

^Yes, but:

a) The afikoman's ritual breaking (what seems to be indicated by Jesus' actions in the breaking - with the special blessing and all) actually takes place before the meal; the only breaking at the point of consumption is for distribution.
b) There is a prayer of grace separating the afikoman (dessert) from the 3rd cup, which is not present in the Biblical account of the Mystical Supper.
c) It seems odd to make a major statement/change using the dessert matzoh rather than at the Motzi Matzoh or during the meal itself.

I don't know - there is too much missing from the biblical account IMO to use it (the Gospels) as proof that Jesus was indeed eating the Seder with His Apostles.

The Talmud claims that the Afikoman is the replacement for the Passover (i.e. the lamb sacrifice).  What is odder is why they use a Greek phrase (<επί Κομός) for it.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_qGHi_9K154C&pg=PA289&dq=Afikoman+sacrifice&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Afikoman%20sacrifice&f=false

The Passover was sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan, "between the two sunsets" Numbers 9:11, Exodus 12:6, to keep the passover.  Again "to eat the Passover" meant the lamb, not the mazzot.  "To eat mazzot" never was a term for Passover in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek.  The Feast of Unleavened bread did not start untill sunset, the beginning of Nisan 15, at which time the sacrifice, the mazzot etc. were eaten. Lev. 23:6, Num. 28:17

Since the Lord instituted the Mystical Supper after the evening of the 14th Nisan He kept the figure of the Old Law "between the two sunsets" while fulfilling it in reality at midday. And since the prohibition of leaven doesn't go into effect until sunset on the 15th, by which time the passover is to have been sacrificed (and He had) no breaking of the letter of the law while keeping its spirit at all.

Among the Jews of today, Bedikas Hametz "search for leaven" where the last of it is eliminated happens on the 14th Nisan.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kZL9RW6q22wC&pg=PA37&dq=Erev+pesach&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Erev%20pesach&f=false

Since there has no sacrifices at the Temple since around the time the NT was being written, there has been a conflagration of the Feast of Mazzot and the Passover.  Hence a lot of confusion from those not members of the 1st century Church.

[ialmisry]

Then what do you do with that "new lump?" And are you saying the Jews were celebrating their feast with old leaven?

Nothing. It causes me no problems. What should I do with it, or what problem should it cause my argument?
A new lump is just that, new. As long as you don't go leavening it, or can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough, you can keep the lump new and unleavened. No problem at all.

Jesus I know, and Paul I know, and Ignatius I know, but who are you?

Wow! Don't be so harsh on yourself. I have not demonized you, why demonize yourself? 

LOL. Good to see that it was taken in the same spirit that it was given.
You have not explained (nor even attempted to explain) 1) the presence of leaven in the discussion at all.  Leaving aside the problem of context-St. Paul is talking about moral theology, not rubrics-leaven has no place in a discussion of Passover at all, except in being purged.  As you point out:

Some protestants hold to a distinction between this meal and the Passover Seder proper, as obviously does the Orthodox. Some do not.
I am one of those who does not. The text itself is clear, this was a passover meal. There is no need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions. The Bible clearly says it was a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion -- as you so thoroughly cited.
Also, the internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder. Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder. That our misleading. No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further. If it looks like a seder, taste like a seder, & feels like a seder it's probably because IT WAS a seder.
However, it is understandably confusing when people then read about the sacrificial offerings the following day. And questions crop up about whether there was a lamb or not (as the text it not explicit either way). I understand their need to rationalize an explanation therefore. However, what some forget (or perhaps do not realize) is that the Jewish day starts at sundown (so the day of Passover had indeed already come) and that there was a dual observance of the passover among the Jews. The majority keeping the feast on the twilight following the day of Passover, a minority keeping the feast on the twilight inaugurating the day of Passover. Obviously Jesus used this ambiguity of which twilight to feast on to both keep the feast and to then fulfill it later that day.

(btw, what is your authority for the boldface? And we Orthodox reckon the day the same way: the 7 hours of prayer for instance begins with Vespers/Evensong.)
You claim that it was a Seder and therefore conclude that it was unleavened bread that Our Lord used.  We'll return to the Seder tasting question below, but I am interested (since this is a thread on Protestant views): what is your argument to your fellow Protestants who hold to a distinction between this meal and a Passover Seder?
As you continued with this line of thought of yours:

As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if ).
Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).

claiming that Christ (and hence the Christians) are celebrating according to the old law.  If that were true, there should be no talk of no leaven, old or new:just the contrast between unleavened and leaven.  I  have seen Jewish allegory on Pasover, and the contrast has always been on the purged leaven and the leavened bread (which is forbidden), not between old and new leaven.  Which contradicts your contention:

Besides, using the figure of bread, living bread does not denote leavened bread, for the bread broken and eaten is cooked. Leavened or unleavened, there is no more activity in the dough once it is cooked. My point? This is essentially bootstrapping to make leaven and living associate when it comes to Christ being our bread form heaven, much less the bread of Passover being His body.

If that were true, then the rabbis wouldn't obsess about the time limit when the water hits the flour: all you would have to do is cook it and the leaven questioned would be solved.  There is something different between unleaven and leavened bread even when cooked, hence the denotations.  And leavened bread doesn't denote sinful bread: the NT NOWHERE makes the rabbinic equation leaven=sin/corruption.  I Corinthians 5:8 would be the only one, but since St. Paul equates the leaven of malice and wickedness with OLD leaven and not just plain leaven (and hence new leaven would not be full of malice and wickedness, but something else, as indeed it, or rather He, is), it's not. (Ditto the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which in this case is ironically unleavened bread, as opposed to the leaven of the Kingdom). 
As was pointed out:

"I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

(btw, artos is used in reference to manna, and the manna stopped on the first day of Unleavened Bread in the Promised Land).  And the Jews murmured at this Living Bread from Heaven as they did at the mannah (John 6:41, Exodus 16 ; in Numbers 21:5 their murmurings brought on the need for the Serpent of John 3:14. Btw, I finally learned recently why the use of the serpent, to prefigure Him Who knew no sin becoming sin for us).  No "I am the mazzah from Heaven"

As I've pointed out:

No, artos  is used only by way of analogy for unleavened bread.  The term azyma is quite common in the OT LXX, as is the Feast of Unleavened [Bread] heorte ton azymon,(Bread is in brackets because it is not in the Greek), which became such a techinical term (like episkopos) that it was adopted straight into Latin (like episcopus) and passed (like >bishop) into English:Azymes (used in the Douay-Rheims).  Because of the technicalities involved in Passover Mazzot, it is quite rare if not unknown to use the default word for "bread" in such a context.  It is as technical as mazzas/mazzot are in English. It would be as odd to refer to them as artos as to talk about bread during Passover: artos/bread is precisely what you are not supposed to be eating.

Indeed azymois is what St. Paul uses here in I Corinthians 5:8, but then there is your second problem:
2) The lump: you mentioned the lump already

BTW, are you familiar with the common custom in that day of using a pinch of leavened dough from a previous batch as the leavening agent in a fresh batch of dough? If not I suggest you look into it a bit, as that is a far more likely an natural understanding Paul on the "new lump" concept.

again that 'pinch" is exactly what is banned under the old law, that "small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper" which became, under the New Covenant, the Paschal sacrifice.  As St. Paul just said (and will say again (Gal. 5:9), where he IS talking about the Old and New Covenants) "leaven leavens the whole lump." Their should be no lump: any lump should have been gotten rid of. A lump is more than "just that, new."  According to the OT law, it is leaven and hence forbidden for the week of Nisan 15.  It cannot not stay "new": it must be immediately baked, in which case it never achieves "lump" status-the rules on mazzot making are crafted to precisely deny that forbidden status to the flour. Mazzot do not involve a "lump": the flour and water must be mixed and rolled flat and IMMEDIATELY baked. Otherwise, they are not kosher for Passover.  If you do "Nothing" about the lump and it "causes [you] no problem at all" the same cannot be said of the rabbis, Jews and Hebrews.  Ask them: "What should [you] do with it?" They would tell you GET RID OF IT!  "What problem should it cause [your] argument?"  You cannot keep the lump "new and unleavened" with "no problem at all": according to the rabbis now, they give only 18 minutes from the moment the water touches the flour to mix, roll and bake, less if anything else is used (hence why mazzah crumbs have to be used for breading meat, mazzah balls etc.  Simple flour won't do: it's considered leavened).  A moment more, and the Jew cannot touch it without being cut off from Israel.  No "lumping" allowed.

So while

Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.

because you are distracted by St. Paul's use of irony (dealt with below), consider, if St. Paul was actually saying what you claim, why does he call on the Corinthians to be a new lump, which by definition has leaven, old or new.  As the lump is by definition leavened, how does "so that you may be a new lump as you are unleavened" work for you?

The lump comes from mixing the leaven (that "pinch") into the three measures of flour and letting set until "the whole" is leavened.  (Mat. 13:33; Luke 13:20-1). As that string of parables instruct us, we are supposed to go leavening it.  It is for this reason that he exhorts the Corinthians to be unleavened from the old leaven, so that they may be leavened by the new, the reverse of the man who had a demon purged from him, but, because he did not leaven himself with anything, the spirit returned with seven worse than himself to the house swept clean and the man was worse than at first (Mat. 12:45, Luke 11:26).  We neither purge the old leaven in the manner of Marcion, nor keep it as did the Ebionites.  As putting new wine into new winskins, new leaven for the new lump.  As St. John points out "in the case of material leaven, the unleavened might become leavened, but never the reverse," and St. Paul's colleague St. Ignatius explained "Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ." 

St. Paul doesn't say we "can can get out that bit of leaven sometimes thrown in (by wayward individuals who return to or retain of the former life) from the old lump before it get's a chance to work and permeate the new batch of dough." He specifically talks about old leaven, not "that bit of leaven," and does not say a thing about an "old" lump, only about the new lump, which the Church has always identified with Christ, as He identified it with His Kingdom, which we are supposed to give a chance to work and permeate us.

Btw:

Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.

The translation NIV "Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" NLV "Get rid of the old "yeast" by removing this wicked person from among you. Then you will be like a fresh batch of dough made without yeast, which is what you really are. Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed for us."  ISV "Get rid of the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough, since you are to be free from yeast. For the Messiah, our Passover, has been sacrificed." ARE emphatically wrong. The "in fact" of the NASB "Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" is inserted, and not in the text.  I don't have to prove St. Paul is uninspired.  You need only disprove that St. Paul is making new lumps out of mazzot.

So, again, why is the discussion of the "lump" there, not to mention the reasoning that we "purge out the old leaven, that [we] may be a new lump"?:

should indicate the virtual impossibility of Christ using leavened bread, even if this was the night before the day the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival began. In preparing for the Passover all leaven, and all things leavened, would have been removed from all places of residence and meal preparations (save for the small bit retained for the final ceremonial cleansing to kick off the festival proper).

That first Eucharist was that last small bit, the Saved Remnaint.

And that removal of the old leaven happened on the 14th of Nisan, the day the Passover was sacrificed as St. John (and St. Paul) tells us. If Christ was sacrificed on the 15th, as is claimed the Synoptics say, He would not be our Passover sacrificed for us. Which leads to your third problem:
3) St. Paul agrees with St. John (and the rest of the Orthodox) that Christ was sacrificed before the Seder, as Christ, as our Passover was sacrificed for us, but to be our Passover, He would have had to have been sacrificed as the Law an type called for:Nisan 14, NOT the 15th, the first day of unleavened bread. The only "need to mishandle or wrest it to fit with our presuppositions" comes with fitting the Gospel account with the typology Moses laid down with the commandments of the celebration of the sacrifice of the Passover (the day beforeNisan 15) and the Unleavened Bread (Nisan 15) and First Fruits and the count down to Pentacost and the reception of the Covenant (Nisan 16).
Such is the Messianic application you ask for:

Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly. 

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

Christ, Our Passover, is the Bread of Life, not the Bread of Affliction.  The Passover lamb was sacrificed before the first day of the feast of the Unleavened Bread, on 14th Nisan.  Scripture and all ancient authorities agree:and, according to the Synoptics, they didn't taste lamb at the supper, so it definitely didn't taste like a seder.  There were Quartodecimentarism, but no Quintodecimeniansim [Polycrates of Ephesus c. 190]:

1...the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them.  He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: 2. “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. 3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.  4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr;....6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.  And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.  7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html
Such is that the Paschal New Moon (i.e. the 14th of Nisan) still determines Pascha.
This problem that people make for the Synoptics (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7, cf. Mat. 26:2, 17) does not explain why the Synoptics identify the first day of Unleavened Bread as the day on which they "killed the Passover."  The Passover was sacrifed, as the OT shows, on the 14th Nisan "between the two sunsets," the Feast of Unleavenend Bread occured on the 15th.  The priests, St. Matthew (26:2, 3-5) and St. Mark specifically tells us (14:1-2), did not arrest, try and kill Christ during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but before. St. Luke tells us (22:1) the Feast of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover; Mark 14:1 tells us the Passover and the [Feast] of Unleavened Bread was coming, conflated in English but distinguished in Greek. If the Passover sacrifice was muddled, upon which your interpretation depends,  with the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, eating the seder (and hence the passover sacrifice) on the second day of the week of the Unleavened and sacrificing the lamb a day late according to Moses, then the the Gospel is breaking the Pentateuch (not to mention St. John) besides "the text itself [being] clear, this was" NOT "a passover meal...The Bible clearly says it was" NOT "a passover celebration that Jesus had with his disciples on the eve of his crucifixion." At least one not according to Moses, who stated in words which cannot be broken and do not pass away, that the Passover was sacrificed on the 14 and the feast of Unleavened on the 15 of Nisan.

"No, God is not the author of confusion, and we need not convolute the matter further."  No Christian ever attached any importance to the 15th of Nisan, so the Synoptics must be read in the light of St. John the Theologian.  ALL messianic prophecies hinge on Christ being sacrifice on the 14th of Nisan. Cf. the typology of Joshua (Greek Jesus) entering the Promised Land after passing through the waters of Jordan (where Christ was baptized) (Jos. 4:18-19): this was the 10th of Nisan, when the Passover lambs were chosen, and then sacrificed (5:10) on the 14th, and on the 15th they ate the old wheat of the land unleavened, and rested (before going to take possession of the Land) as it was a double Sabbath-both for the Week and the Passover Festival-just as the Lord rested on the last day of the Old Creation and kept the Sabbath in the tomb, and the next day on the 16th they ate of the first fruits of the promised land (Lev. 23:10), a type of the Resurrection-the Eighth Day of Creation and the First Day of the New Creation-and the manna ceased to fall (5:12).  They were home.  And they started counting the Omer, which was the countdown to Pentacost, when the Law came down, both Old and New.
Btw, the Jews stress that Israel was freed on Passover only so that they could receive the Commandments on Pentacost. Hmmm. Sounds familiar....purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump....They also read Ruth on that day, the account of the founding of the House of David.  How's that for Messianic? They also seem to answer your further questioning:

Besides, a cursory familiarity with Jewish festival customs

As they are celebrated now: it never ceases to amaze me how Protestants, who won't accept the Tradition of the Church, take the traditions that the present days Jews preserve from the pharisees as the Gospel truth, whether it be their preference of the late Masoretic text (fixed Nearly a millenium after the Church's Septuagint), or the preference of the Talmud's interpretation over the Fathers of the Church.

Exactly. 

Well, can either of you prove that the things to which I referred have no ancient validation nor Messianic application?

The passage is talking about sexual immorality. No Messianic application, except heresy.
As to ancient validation, the universal usage of the Church has been leavened bread.

A quick FYI ... I was referring to calling in question the specific references I made to Jewish festival customs. Can you prove them to have no ancient validation or Messianic application?

All application of the Hebrew festivals hinges on Christ our Passover being sacrificed for us on the 14th Nisan, and hence all Christian festivals, including the Eucharist:

I actually see the institution of the eucharist happening with the supper. The reference to "after supper" refers again to ceremonial stages of the seder, and helps to indicates which seder cup (the after supper cup, or the 4th in the seder) Christ chose to represent His blood. So, I definitely see it (though designated "after supper") as a continuance of the seder.
However, as an aside, I do not believe the full seder meal or celebration is obligatory for believers (though quite illuminating when seen) -- only those elements thereof which Christ ordains as uniquely referring to Him and His sacrificial offering of Himself as our passover.

There was nothing unique (except for what Christ made it) in the Supper: reciting blessings over bread and breaking it for distribution, and then a blessing over the cup were the common ceremonial of Hebrew meals.  Hence no "internal evidence confirms the order of the Seder; i.e. the after supper cup, the blessing of the bread and cup, the hymn after the meal... " nor do "these, taken together, all indicate the ceremonial process of the Seder." To claim "Of which there would be no point if it was not a Seder" is "[y]our misleading": such was format of any Hebrew meal, who saw the sanctification of daily life as an integral part of the Faith (as it still is).
("The Eucharist in the New Testament," Jerome Kodell, Chapter 3 "Jewish Meals in the First Century")
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ltfLemA6F4C&pg=PA38&dq=Eucharist+in+the+New+Testament+Jewish+Meals+in+the+first+century&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Eucharist%20in%20the%20New%20Testament%20Jewish%20Meals%20in%20the%20first%20century&f=false
Hence there is no problem of validation of ancient Jewish customs, except the problem for seeing the Afikoman as the Eucharist is that the Afikoman was the Passover lamb in Christ's day.  Hence the absence of lamb on the Synoptics menu is not a little detail, what it meant to "eat the Passover" if we are going to insist on reading things with a veil on (II Cor. 3:15). And if the lamb was present, then the Eucharist is not the passover lamb, and could not be eaten (if the rabbis are to be believed) as the lamb was the last to be eaten, right before midnight.   Then there's that problem that the New Testament never interprets the Eucharist in the light of Passover.
Your assertions (true enough)

And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:

Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).

I understand what you are saying, however, since Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35) any view thereof that causes the gospels (or any other book of Scripture) to disagree, rather than to harmonize, must be a false view or understanding. Besides, Paul is quite clear on the nature of the bread we are to use at the Lords table, and why (1 Corinthians 5:8).

should include, for instance, John 12:1 and 19:14 (and Ex. 12:6, Lev. 23:6, Num. 9:11 and 28:17). And harmonize Mat. 26:2, 17, Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 accordingly.  And use leaven bread, as St. Paul did. Because St. Paul was quite found of irony, as he is using here, setting metaphors on their heads, which has confused some.  Which brings us to another problem:
4) Changing the metaphor into a Judaising rubric requires ignoring St. Paul's use of metaphor.  St. Paul uses the exact proverb of I Cor. 5:6 in Gal. 5:9, where he is dealing with feasting under the Old and New Covenants (btw, Gal. 4:9-11 precludes "Christian Seders" and other Judaisizing elements that many Protestants, rejecting the Church calendar, have adopted the Hebrew OT calendar as interpreted by the Jews), and launches into a discussion (4:21-31) which, interpreted as I Cor. 5 is being interpreted, would teach us new and strange things such as the Law came down on Sinai for the Ishmaelites (4:24), Sinai is in Jerusalem (25), and the Jews are the sons of Hagar (25, 29).  Now, since St. Paul had been to Jerusalem and Arabia (where Sinai is), I don't think he failed geography class at Gamaliel's academy.  Nor was he confused about the Jews' genealogy, any more than he got the rubrics on the Eucharist wrong or was confused on using leavened bread.  Nor did he fail physiology: St. Paul is not mistaken is his frequent image of the Jews being uncircumcized and the Gentile Christians circumsized in Colossians, Ephesians, Romans, Galatians and indeed here in I Corinthians: he does not think (nor do we) that the Jews' foreskins grew back, nor those of the Gentiles fell off.  As you state, St. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading:

I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.

I understand your hesitancy, but it just makes sense if you meditate on the passage a bit. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading. Furthermore, he frames his obvious metaphorical application (concerning Christian living on the whole) with the observance of the passover fulfilled, what you good folk call the eucharist. So, what he says about the Lord's table here must be literally true for the application to make sense, else there is no basis for the comparison or extension he is making. I mean,really, if we eat leavened bread then Paul's words here are difficult to understand at best, and are totally incoherent and non-applicable at worst. The clear meaning and intention is that the unleavened bread we eat speaks to the purity of life Christ lived in the flesh, and our partaking in that same purity of heart and life, both positionally and experientially.

You are somewhat on St. Paul's point here: he is using the rabbinic equation (still used by the Jews) leaven=corruption, evil, pride. He refers to this metaphor which, as Hebrews, would have been familiar to the Church at Corinth.  However, the interjection of the new lump, distinction old/new leaven and Christ our Passover was sacrificed prevents (or should prevent you) from taking that too far: St. Paul in the same epistle refers to idol worship (10:20-22) without admitting it has any basis in reality (10:19, 8:1, 4); nor can his reference to baptism for the dead (15:29) be used (sorry Joseph Smith) as justification for the practice.  We haven't had any difficulty in nearly 2,000 years we have been around in understanding St. Paul's words here: neither St. John nor St. Ignatius (who knew St. Paul personally) found his words incoherent or non-applicable, but then they partook of the new leaven, Christ our Passover sacrificed for us, as we do today.

To state the sasme more briefly and rhetorically...
If Christ our passover is identified in Scripture with unleavened bread, and the bread is his body, what then does it say about Christ to use leavened bread in praxis? Such is a contradiction.

Christ Our Passover is NOT identified in this Scripture (or elsewhere) with unleavened bread: the passover refers to the lamb sacrificed. As I posted:

He is the Paschal lamb, not the passover bread.

"Eating the Passover (sacrificial lamb)" is a common expression in Hebrew and Aramaic (appearing only once, in II Esdars 6:21, in the LXX) for celebrating Passover, but no expression "Eating the Mazzoth" appears for Passover.  Again, it is determinative that no lamb (except of course, THE Lamb of God) is in the synoptics.  Which is a problem, because artos is the word without exception used in reference to the Mystical Supper, although bare artos is never used in reference to the Passover, nor the mazzoth.

As Pravoslavbob pointed out, St. Paul is speaking in metaphors, actually turning them on their head.  To not see that, does violence to the text.

Per Paul, He is both.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

because He has the leaven of divinity which He shares with us as the Bread that has come down from Heaven.  And comes down: hence the iconostais where the Royal Doors (the middle doors, which open up to the altar) are flanked by the icon of Christ and the Theotokos-how He came down-on the one side and on the other-the Pantocrator "Christ Almighty"-how He will come down on the other.  In the middle is the altar, on which He comes down in the Eucharist, now: an image that dates from the days of Justin Martyr (from 2nd century Palestine). Christ Himself identifies His Kingdom with leaven.  He nowhere uses the rabbinic metaphor of leaven=sin. Nor, for that matter, does the rest of the NT.  And the Church, the New Lump leavened by Christ has always had as her praxis the use of the new leaven in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the true Passover sacrifice sacrificed for us.  No, St. Paul does NOT identify Christ and the Eucharist with unleavened bread.  Otherwise he would have used azyma instead of artos in Chapter 10, and we would be speaking of the "breaking of the mazzo" instead of the "breaking of the bread."  St. Paul, his friend St. Ignatius, their follower St. John and the rest of us have held to the symbolism that Christ Himself teaches on leaven in the Gospels.  As for Judaising symbolism

Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I not sure what distinction you are making.  Our leaven bread is pierced and broken (see the Proskomedia service mentioned earlier).  As for the stripes, it looks pox marked to me (I've replaced the photo of the machine made Mazza in your OP with one of a hand made mazzah: they didn't have machines in 1st century Palestine).

And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:

Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).

That's your problem, not ours (St. John, St. Ignatius, and St. Paul):azyma in never used instead of artos, and the two are not interchangeable, and the latter is the ONLY term used for the eucharist, whereas the former is the term used for the week of Unleavened [Bread].  To preserve your interpretation of St. Paul as arguing for seder for the Mystical Supper, you are going to either:
have to make Moses a liar, for setting up a faulty typology (Nisan 15 won't work for a Passover sacrifice, nor for the fast of the firstborn, nor a first fruits on the Resurrection, etc.)
have to make the Synoptics liars, as your interpretation of them precludes Christ being our Passover sacrificed for us.
have to make St. John a liar, as he makes it quite clear the Seder had not yet been celebrated nor the Passover yet slain.
have to make St. Paul a liar for talking about bread when he talks about the Eucharist (which is not his topic in chapter 5, but is chapter 10), a Mormon for baptizing the dead, a proto-Muslim for making Ishmael the receiver of the covenant at Sinai....
As you say, scripture cannot be broken.  And the scripture does NOT here, nor anywhere, refer to Christ as unleavened bread. You have, just as the Jews have now, replaced the Passover with the Afikoman matza, and put that in St. Paul's mouth.
It doesn't look like a seder because no lamb is to be seen, doesn't taste like a seder because no lamb (except the Lamb of God) is eaten, & doesn't feel like a seder because the Eucharist comes at the end instead of the passover lamb sacrificed (the Pachal Lamb of God fulfilling it instead the coming day) which is the last think the rabbis say should be eaten,  it's probably because it was NOT a seder. And if it wasn't a seder, so goes the need to  have the Eucharist unleavened.

He may be living bread, but He is also unleavened bread, per the Apostle Paul. That's about as apostolic as one can get, btw.
As to the metaphorical nature of Paul's use of the phrase, again, the metaphor makes NO SENSE unless the basis is real, or in this case literal. Associations to Passover, keeping the feast, and eating unleavened bread must refer to the literal observance and use of such in order for any extrapolation Paul intends to hold. Else Paul is nonsensical here (as if ).

If we are to hold that, then we must hold that he believed Hagar was his Hebrew ancestress, the Ishmaelites were at Sinai, Sinai is in Jerusalem, and St. Paul baptized the dead and believed idols were real.  We also must hold that St. Paul when he calls the Jews uncircumcized means that their foreskins grew back, and for the Gentiles called circumcized their foreskins dissolved in the baptismal font.  Talk about nonsense.  Or we can hold, as St. Ignatius, St. John and all the rest of the Orthdoox for the past two millenia that St. Paul is refering to a metaphor familiar to his audience and himself from their former life with the old leaven, to make a point on life partaking of the new leaven.

I know that some Protestants hold that St. Paul wrote Corinthians in the context of Passover and hence the reference.  However, he throws out the off hand remark in a long passage about sexual immorality (one of the Corinthians' special vices), in which the leaven is specifically identified as teaching, and exchanging good leaven for bad.  It has nothing to do with proper rubrics for the Eucharist, which doesn't come until several chapters later.

Nevertheless, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. The metaphor will NOT work if that bread is indeed leavened. Skirt it all you like, decry the fact that Paul uses it with an abstract application, it will not change the necessity of the bread referred to by metaphor being unleavened, else Paul makes no valid point, is nonsensical, and obviously is not writing under inspiration of the Spirit of God. Leavened bread just will not do, cause no matter how you twist it, Paul has associated our feasting, our Christ, and unleavened bread in eternal union. After all, God's word is settled forever in heaven, and what Paul wrote is merely an accurate reflection thereof, penned under special guidance of the Deity itself.
Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul. 

St. Ignatius, St. John and all the rest of the Greek fathers didn't need a translation, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit stuck with St. Paul and the leavened  artos he speaks about when the topic does turn to the Eucharist.  Neither St. John nor we need to change the original nor the translation (as you suggest:

Ialmisry,
Despite Chrysostom & as noted previously, Paul still refers to the bread of our feasting as unleavened. That metaphor just will NOT work if the bread is indeed leavened. ... Argue all you like, unless you can prove Paul was uninspired OR that the translation is emphatically wrong and should read "let us keep the feast with the leavened bread of sincerity and truth" then I'm gonna stick with Apostle Paul.

as two millenia of Church praxis and teaching shows such mistranslation is not necessary for his meaning. Now, 2,000 years of consitent witnessing to the Truth of Christ may seem an awful lot of effort and trouble

Ialmisry,
That's an awful lot of effort and trouble to go through to try and make "keep the feast with the unleavened bread" actually mean "keep the feast with the newly leavened bread". Somehow it still just doesn't work for me. My mind just can't compute that unleavened actually means newly or freshly leavened.
Anyhow, like I said, unless you can prove Paul is uninspired, or that the translation is emphatically wrong and should actually read "leavened bread" then I'm going to stick with Paul.

but we think it worth it for the successors of the Apostles to uphold their teachings, so that the Orthodox Church remains the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic One.

As to Chrysostom's sermon, post away. I'm still standing with Apostle Paul. ;-)

You mean St. Paul according to infallible Pope Cleopas I. 

Ha ha! I anticipated the likelihood of such a response, though in truth, no. Not according to Cleopas, but according to Paul, by his own hand (or dictation as it were), under inspiration of God, and preserved in Holy writ. Alas, it seems we have reached the dreaded impasse. Nevertheless, here I stand, so help me God.

No impasse at all: simply show us those before you who believed as you do, and on what basis they stand.  Because neither St. Paul (who brings leavening the lump with new leaven into discussion), the Synoptics (who according to your interpretation disqualify Christ as the Passover), St. John (who disqualifies the Eucharist as a Seder) or Moses (who set up the typology you reject) is backing you up.

[xariskai]

I found the article quoted below, by Jonathan Klawans, in Biblical Archaeology Review to be interesting, which supports the Orthodox and Johannine position. Two points in the article germane to this discussion: (1) leavened bread was the more primitive practice in the early post-apostolic period (cf. Jaroslav Pelikan on medieval debate re. the use of unleavened bread); (2) Klawans argues with John and contra the Synoptics that the Last Supper was not a Passover Sedar (see the full article for details).

The basic data, such as the seeming disparity between the Synoptics and John on the question, are vexing enough that we find contemporary scholars on all sides of the NT issue. On the Catholic side Pope Benedict XVI once cited French scholar Annie Jaubert for the harmonistic perspective which postulates the disciples were following the calendar the Pharisees who celebrated the start of Passover a day earlier than most Jews. The historical question about primitive post-apostolic practice, however, is decisively in favor of the Orthodox practice as the more ancient one within the Universal Church during the early period.

Jonathan Klawans, “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Sedar?” (Biblical Archaeology Review)
http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/jesus-last-supper.asp#note23r

"Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic custom of using unleavened wafers in the Mass is medieval in origin. The Orthodox churches preserve the earlier custom of using leavened bread.23 Is it not possible to see the switch from using leavened to unleavened bread as a “Passoverization” of sorts?"

23. On the medieval debate between the Catholic and Orthodox churches on this matter, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700) (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 177–178. On the archaeological evidence pertaining to this dispute, see George Galavaris, Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1970).

“I want to operate here under the opposite assumptions: that the Gospels can tell us about the historical Jesus,3 and that rabbinic sources can be used—with caution—to reconstruct what Jews at the time of Jesus might have believed and practiced.4 Even so, I do not think the Last Supper was a Passover Seder.”

[Keble]

I challenge a protestant to explain away this verse:

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7

Is the Eucharist symbolic, just plain unleavened bread or the flesh and blood of the Messiah? Do we have life by eating his flesh and drinking his blood or not? Explain away.

Well, since we've revived this old thread, I for one see nothing in context that says that this has anything to do with communion. Taken at face value, it is an attack upon gnosticism.

Over in the Anglican end of things, I don't think we really care that much whether or not the last supper was a seder.

[ialmisry]

I challenge a protestant to explain away this verse:

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 1:7

Is the Eucharist symbolic, just plain unleavened bread or the flesh and blood of the Messiah? Do we have life by eating his flesh and drinking his blood or not? Explain away.

Well, since we've revived this old thread, I for one see nothing in context that says that this has anything to do with communion. Taken at face value, it is an attack upon gnosticism.

Over in the Anglican end of things, I don't think we really care that much whether or not the last supper was a seder.

I dare say you can flat out deny the Last Supper/Mystical Supper happened (and the Crucifixion and Resurrection for that matter) and still receive ordination from an Anglican.

Btw, the Father do connect the too, e.g. St. Ignatius, to the Smyrnaeans "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. "

[ialmisry]

Romans 11:16 "For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches." So St. John Chrysostom expounds:

Ver. 16. “For if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches;”

So calling in this passage by the names of the first-fruit and root Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets, the patriarchs, all who were of note in the Old Testament; and the branches, those from them who believed.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxi.html

But alas, this prophecy came true:

Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." (Mat 13:33 NKJ)

For those who are wondering what Mr. Persson is talking about, some of the untaught and unstable believers in sola scriptura twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, this verse to mean that invisible church that they preach but the Apostles knew nothing about, the three measures of meal being the masses of the Body of Christ, which like HIm, is seen. Is that what interpretation you are following, Mr. Persson?

So why we rejoice in the spread of the Church, they mourn.

The successor of the Apostles, St. John Chrysostom, passes on their understanding:

And why may it be that they let pass the parable of the leaven, and of the mustard seed, and inquire concerning this? They let those pass, as being plainer; but about this, as having an affinity to that before spoken, and as setting forth something more than it, they are desirous to learn (since He would not have spoken the same to them a second time); for indeed they saw how severe was the threatening therein uttered. Wherefore neither doth He blame them, but rather completes His previous statements.

And, as I am always saying, the parables must not be explained throughout word for word, since many absurdities will follow; this even He Himself is teaching us here in thus interpreting this parable. Thus He saith not at all who the servants are that came to Him, but, implying that He brought them in, for the sake of some order, and to make up the picture, He omits that part, and interprets those that are most urgent and essential, and for the sake of which the parable was spoken; signifying Himself to be Judge and Lord of all.

What is the difference between this, and the parable before it? There He speaks of them that have not at all holden with Him, but have started aside, and have thrown away the seed; but here He means the societies of the heretics. For in order that not even this might disturb His disciples, He foretells it also, after having taught them why He speaks in parables. The former parable then means their not receiving Him; this, their receiving corrupters. For indeed this also is a part of the devil’s craft, by the side of the truth always to bring in error, painting thereon many resemblances, so as easily to cheat the deceivable. Therefore He calls it not any other seed, but tares; which in appearance are somewhat like wheat...

After this He adds the leaven to this similitude, saying, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.”  For as this converts the large quantity of meal into its own quality, 1819   ἰσχν.even so shall ye convert the whole world.

And see His wisdom, in that He brings in things natural, implying that as the one cannot fail to take place, so neither the other. For say not this to me: “What shall we be able to do, twelve men, throwing ourselves upon so vast a multitude?” Nay, for this very thing most of all makes your might conspicuous, that ye mix with the multitude and are not put to flight. As therefore the leaven then leavens the lump when it comes close to the meal, and not simply close, but so as to be actually mixed with it (for He said not, “put,” simply, but “hid”); so also ye, when ye cleave to your enemies, and are made one with them, then shall ye get the better of them. And as the leaven, though it be buried, yet is not destroyed, but by little and little transmutes all into its own condition; of like sort will the event be here also, with respect to the gospel. Fear ye not then, because I said there would be much injurious dealing: for even so shall ye shine forth, and get the better of all.

But by “three measures,” here, He meant many, for He is wont to take this number for a multitude.

And marvel not, if discoursing about the kingdom, He made mention of a little seed and of leaven; for He was discoursing with men inexperienced and ignorant, and such as needed to be led on by those means. For so simple were they, that even after all this, they required a good deal of explanation.

Where now are the children of the Greeks? Let them learn Christ’s power, seeing the verity of His deeds, and on either ground let them adore Him, that He both foretold so great a thing, and fulfilled it. Yea, for it is He that put the power into the leaven. With this intent He mingled also with the multitude those who believe on Him, that we might impart unto the rest of our wisdom. Let no one therefore reprove us for being few. For great is the power of the gospel, and that which hath been once leavened, becomes leaven again for what remains. And as a spark, when it hath caught in timber, makes what hath been burnt up already increase the flame, and so proceeds to the rest; even so the gospel likewise. But He said not fire, but “leaven.” Why might this be? Because in that case the whole effect is not of the fire, but partly of the timber too that is kindled, but in this the leaven doth the whole work by itself.

3. Now if twelve men leavened the whole world, imagine how great our baseness, in that when we being so many are not able to amend them that remain; we, who ought to be enough for ten thousand worlds, and to become leaven to them. “But they,” one may say, “were apostles.” And what then? Were they not partakers with thee? Were they not brought up in cities? Did they not enjoy the same benefits? Did they not practise trades? What, were they angels? What, came they down from Heaven?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XLVII.html

[Keble]

The unmitigable problem is that the synoptics, taken by themselves, say that the Last Supper was a seder, while John, again taken by himself, says that it was not. One could therefore conclude that the Passover is a type of sacrifice of Jesus, and that the remembrance of that sacrifice is not simply a recasting of the Passover. And surely as far as the use of leavened or unleavened bread is concerned, Acts 15 takes precedence and says that we gentiles are not under the sway of having to observe the Supper as if it were or were not a Jewish rite. Early on, Anglicans were wont to specify what sort of bread was to be used, but it was not long until we stopped specifying, and we now look upon the choice of material as a matter of local custom. The East is far more concerned with differentiation from the Jews than the West is; conversely I suspect that sitting beside the Roman emphasis on Paschal typology is the practical matter that unleavened hosts do not shed crumbs and are more easily reserved and presented for adoration. More recent Anglicans have often preferred a single, undivided loaf which is not broken or cut until the fraction (which is why pita is so commonly used); and yet we do not quibble over the validity of Eastern or Roman practice. (We draw the line at grape juice, however.) None of this comes from scripture, of course, so in the end it seems to come down to which aspect one chooses to play up.

[jnorm888]

The unmitigable problem is that the synoptics, taken by themselves, say that the Last Supper was a seder, while John, again taken by himself, says that it was not. One could therefore conclude that the Passover is a type of sacrifice of Jesus, and that the remembrance of that sacrifice is not simply a recasting of the Passover. And surely as far as the use of leavened or unleavened bread is concerned, Acts 15 takes precedence and says that we gentiles are not under the sway of having to observe the Supper as if it were or were not a Jewish rite. Early on, Anglicans were wont to specify what sort of bread was to be used, but it was not long until we stopped specifying, and we now look upon the choice of material as a matter of local custom. The East is far more concerned with differentiation from the Jews than the West is; conversely I suspect that sitting beside the Roman emphasis on Paschal typology is the practical matter that unleavened hosts do not shed crumbs and are more easily reserved and presented for adoration. More recent Anglicans have often preferred a single, undivided loaf which is not broken or cut until the fraction (which is why pita is so commonly used); and yet we do not quibble over the validity of Eastern or Roman practice. (We draw the line at grape juice, however.) None of this comes from scripture, of course, so in the end it seems to come down to which aspect one chooses to play up.

Are you sure you draw the line with grape juice? Back when I was episcopal I remember one mission parish using non alcoholic wine.

[ignatius]

The unmitigable problem is that the synoptics, taken by themselves, say that the Last Supper was a seder, while John, again taken by himself, says that it was not. One could therefore conclude that the Passover is a type of sacrifice of Jesus, and that the remembrance of that sacrifice is not simply a recasting of the Passover. And surely as far as the use of leavened or unleavened bread is concerned, Acts 15 takes precedence and says that we gentiles are not under the sway of having to observe the Supper as if it were or were not a Jewish rite. Early on, Anglicans were wont to specify what sort of bread was to be used, but it was not long until we stopped specifying, and we now look upon the choice of material as a matter of local custom. The East is far more concerned with differentiation from the Jews than the West is; conversely I suspect that sitting beside the Roman emphasis on Paschal typology is the practical matter that unleavened hosts do not shed crumbs and are more easily reserved and presented for adoration. More recent Anglicans have often preferred a single, undivided loaf which is not broken or cut until the fraction (which is why pita is so commonly used); and yet we do not quibble over the validity of Eastern or Roman practice. (We draw the line at grape juice, however.) None of this comes from scripture, of course, so in the end it seems to come down to which aspect one chooses to play up.

Grace and Peace,

I agree that on the surface, the Synoptic Gospels appear to contradict the Gospel of John concerning the date of the Last Supper. Clearly, the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus celebrating the last Supper as a Passover meal prior to Good Friday (Mt 26:17; Mk 14:12; Lk 22:15), while John's Gospel seems to indicate that the Passover was not celebrated by Jewish authorities until the evening of Good Friday itself (Jn 18:28; 19:14). How can Jesus have celebrated the Passover before his crucifixion (Synoptics) when the Passover did not begin until several hours after his death (John)?

Some deal with this problem by denying that the last Supper was a Passover meal (Eastern Orthodox). Orthers suggest that Passover did indeed fall on the evening of Holy Thursday, but that John manipulated the historical facts for theological reasons in order to present Jesus as the true paschal Lamb (Liberal-minded Bible-hating Scum-bags  ) Still others hold that Jesus celebrated an anticipatory Passover one day ahead of the official date (Liberal-minded Losers ). Unfortunately, none of these views is really satisfactory. Two main solutions, however, have been proposed to reconcile the accounts in John and the Synoptics. Both rely on the findings of modern scholarship as well as ancient traditions of the Church.

The Calendar Proposal

Some maintain that Jesus, when he celebrated the Last Supper, followed an alternative Jewish calendar in which Passover fell on Tuesday night instead of Friday night. Thus, the Synoptic Gospels correctly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, whereas John correctly notes that Jewish authorities id not celebrate the feast until the evening of Good Friday. Four considerations are said to favor this solution.

1.)It is clear that Judaism was divided over the acceptance of a liturgical calendar in the first century. Authorities in control of the Jerusalem Temple followed a lunar calendar in which feast days fell on a different day each year, but other Jewish groups such as the Essenes and the Qumran community preferred a solar calendar in which annual festivals always fell on the same day of the week year after year. Passover, for instance, was always held on Tuesday night (the first hours of Wednesday) according to the solar calendar. Given this situation, it is conceivable that Jesus followed the Essene calendar instead of the Temple Calendar when he celebrated his final Passover.

2.)Archaeology suggests that the traditional site of the upper room (the Cenacle) lies within the Essene quarter of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, the probable location of the Last Supper on the southwest him of the city is precisely where archeologists have uncovered the remains of an Essene settlement from the first century. If the identification holds, this would tighten the possible connection between Jesus, the Last Supper, and the Essene solar calendar.

3.)The hypothesis that Jesus celebrated the last Supper on Tuesday night has an added dimension of historical plausibility: it allows more time for the extensive legal proceedings that transpired between his arrest and condemnation. Recall that Jesus was taken before Annas (Jn 18:13, 19-23), Caiaphas (Jn 18:24), the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71), Herod (Lk 23:6-11), and Pilate (Jn 18:28-40). These trials may have occurred during a single night, but the events fit more comfortable within the span of several days.

4.)A Syriac test from the third century explicitly states that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on Tuesday night (Didascalia Apostolorum 5, 12-18), and other ancient writers, such as bishop Victorinus of Pettau (De Fabrica Mundi 3) and Saint Epiphanius (Panarion 51, 26), state that Jesus was taken into custody on Tuesday night. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI commented that this solution is worthy of consideration ("Homily for the Mass of the Lord's Supper, Holy Thursday, 5 April 2007).

The Paschal Proposal

Another solution contends that John's Gospel follows the same chronology as the Synoptics when its historical notations are considered more carefully. On this view, Jesus celebrates the Last Supper on Thursday night, along with the rest of Jerusalem, and the notion that john puts Passover on Friday night is simply a misunderstanding of the evangelist's use of Passover terminology. Four considerations may be said to favor this hypothesis.

1.) It is important to recognize that the word "Passover", both in Hebrew (pesah) and in Greek (pascha), has a wider range of meaning than simply "Passover lamb" or "Passover meal". It can also designate the entirety of "Passover week" (Lk 22:1), as well as "the peace offerings sacrificed and eaten during Passover week" (Deut 16:2-3; Mishnah, Pesahim 9, 5) In light of this latter usage, one could say that the Jewish authorities in John 18:28 probably fear that defilement will disqualify them from partaking, not of the Passover Seder (held the night before), but of the celebratory sacrifices eaten during Passover week. Peace offerings, after all, could not be eaten in a state of ritual defilement (Lev 7:19-20).

2.) The supper that Jesus attends in john 13:2 is the same as the Synoptic Last Supper, in which case it was a Passover meal. This is not stated explicitly, but John's description of the meal highlights features that, taken together, are distinctive of a Passover banquet (e.g., the participants reclined, Jn 13:23; morsels were dipped, Jn 13:26; some thought Judas was sent with an offering for the poor, Jn 29; the meal took place at night, Jn 13:30). Thus, the comment that Jesus contemplated his hour "before the feast of the Passover: (Jn 13:1) puts this moment of reflection, not a full day before the paschal celebration began, but on the afternoon of Passover eve, only a short time before the start of the feast.

3.) The RSV takes John 19:14 to mean that Jesus was sentenced to death on "the day of Preparation of the Passover". This translation is not impossible, but neither is it preferable. The greek term rendered "day of Preparation" is simply the common word for "Friday", the day when Jews made preparations for the Sabbath (Mk 15:42; Lk 23:54). Since John himself appears to use the term primarily in relation to the Sabbath (see Jn 19:31, 42), it is likely that the expression in John 19:14 means "Friday of Passover week" and is not meant to identify the afternoon of Good Friday as Passover eve.

4.) Christian theologians who have favored this solution include Saint John Chrysostom (Homilies on John 83) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae III, 4, 9).

So, although I understand the apparent problem... we have answers.

Peace Out!

[ialmisry]

Just came across this again. Thought it might be interesting here. Aquinas "Against the Errors [sic] of the Greeks:

CHAPTER 39

Against the position of those who deny the Sacrament may be confected with unleavened bread.

But just as the aforesaid misguided persons sin against the unity of the mystical Body by denying the plenary power of the Roman Pontiff, so they sin against the purity of the sacrament of the Body of Christ, saying that the Body of Christ cannot be consecrated from unleavened bread. This, too, is disproved from texts of the Greek Doctors.

For Chrysostom commenting on the Gospel pericope, On the first day of the unleavened bread, says: “The first day he says is Thursday, on which observers of the Law began to celebrate the Passover, that is, to eat unleavened brewad, absolutely free of yeast. The Lord, therefore, sends his disciples on Thursday, which the Evangelist calls the first day of the unleavened bread, on which in the evening the Savior ate the Passover; in this deed, as in all he did from the beginning of his circumcision to the final day of his passover, he clearly showed that he was not opposed to divine laws.” 
Lib. 106, 1-13, from Theophylact Super Matth. XXVI: 17 (PG 123, 440 note a, and 441 A).


Close But it is obvious that he would have acted against the law if he had used leavened bread. Hence it is clear that in the institution of this sacrament Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread.
It should be remarked, 
It should be remarked…to the end of the 5th paragraph: this entire section, with the soleomission of the text of Chrysostom in the third paragraph, is read in Contra Gent. IV, c 69 (cf.Preface, Leonine ed., parag. 44); but Thomas reviewing the question in S.T. III, q 46, a 9, quotesChrysostom according to the translation made by Burgundy.


Close however, that some  Some: the Greeks whose arguments Thomas reports in Super Sent. IV, d 11, q 2, a 2, qc 3.


Close claim Christ anticipated the day of unleavened bread because his passion was at hand, and so used leavened bread. This they attempt to show on two grounds. First, because in John 13: 1, it is said that before the feast of the Passover Jesus celebrated with his disciples the supper in which he consecrated his body, as the Apostle teaches in 1 Cor. 11: 21. Whence it seems that Christ celebrated the Passover before the day of the unleavened bread, and so in the consecration of his body he used leavened bread. Further, they would confirm this by noting that according to John 18: 28, on the Friday on which Christ was crucified the Jews did not enter the praetorium of Pilate in order that they might not defile, but eat the Passover. But the Passsover is called the unleavened bread. They therefore conclude that the supper was celebrated before the unleavened bread.

To this, however, Chrysostom replies, commenting on that very text of John: That they might not be defiled, etc.: “What does this mean, but that they ate the Passover on another day and broke the law in order that they might fulfill the most wicked desire of their soul in the death of Christ; Christ, however, did not transgress Holy Thursday in paschal week, but on that day he ate the Passover.” 
Lib. 108, 3-8, from Chrysostom Super Matth. hom. 84, n 2 (PG 58, 754).


Close

But since this is not certain, it might be better to say that, as the Lord commands in Exodus 12:18-19, the feast of the unleavened bread was observed throughout seven days, of which the first day, that is, the fifteenth day of the month, was holier and more solemn than the others. But because among the Jews solemn feasts began to be celebrated on the preceding evening, the unleavened bread began to be eaten on the fourteenth day in the evening and was eaten during the seven following days. That is why it is said in the same chapter: In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, you shall eat the unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening; for seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses. And on the same fourteenth day in the evening the paschal lamb was sacrificed.

 Hence, the first day of the unleavened bread is called by the three Evangelists, Matthew 26: 17; Mark 14:12; and Luke 22:7, the fourteenth day of the month, because toward evening the unleavened bread was eaten and then the Passover, that is, the paschal lamb was sacrificed. And, according to John 13: 1, this was before the feast of the Passover, that is, before the fifteenth day of the month, because this was the most solemn day on which the Jews wished to eat the Passover, that is, the unleavened paschal bread as well as the paschal lamb. Thus, there being no disagreement among the Evangelists, it is plain that Christ consecrated his body from unleavened bread at the supper.

Clearly, also, this is more fitting for the purity of the mystical Body, that is, the Church, typified in this sacrament. Hence, Gregory Nazianzen says in his sermon on the feast of the Passover of the Lord: “Let us celebrate a feast to the Lord with jubilation, not in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and purity (1 Cor. 5:.” 
Lib. 105, 9-12; cf. Gregory Naz. Oratio I n. 3 (PG 35, 397 A).


We do not, however, mean by this that the sacrament may not be confected using leavened bread. For Pope Gregory says in his Register: “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread because the Word of the Father took flesh without any carnal conmingling; but other Churches offer leavened bread because the Word of the Father is clothed with flesh and is true God and true man. So, also, yeast is mixed with flour and this becomes the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?