Communion Bread : Unleavened or Leavened - David Bercot

Lesson Transcript

So we're going to be talking today about communion bread. Should it be unleavened or leavened? And at first glance, I mean, this might seem like a trivial topic and maybe one that doesn't have any practical application. But in truth, neither one of those accusations would be fair. As far as celebrating communion, doing it properly is never going to be a trivial topic because Jesus said concerning the bread, "Take heed, this is my body." And that's been interpreted in many ways, so many controversies over that.

No matter how you want to interpret it, he's telling us it is something sacred, something extremely important. So celebrating it properly is never going to be a trivial matter. It's something I think we all are concerned about. As far as practicality, while we're talking about it, those of you who are members have probably noticed over the last few months we've had different kinds of communion bread. And the reason is because the various sisters who've been making the bread have been experimenting.

We're trying to come up with a bread that isn't as crumbly. We're going to talk about that towards the end of this sermon. It's a whole other topic. But in the course of that, some of the bread has been leavened in a mechanical way. We're going to be talking about that. Some of it isn't. I've been asked by actually a number of people, "Well, wait a minute, is this leavened bread? Isn't that wrong? We shouldn't be having communion with leavened bread," which is how I would have been raised.

And so that's what we're going to be talking about today. Does it have to be unleavened? And yes or no? And why? So if I'm able to hold your attention on this, if you listen today, this part I can guarantee you at the end of today's sermon, you're going to know more about communion bread than 99% of the pastors in this town, let alone the people in the congregations. So I learned a whole lot preparing this sermon this week.

So that's where we're going to be talking about the question of unleavened bread or leavened bread. And both those pictures I've shown you are actually communion bread. Now, unlike all of you, the assumption most of us have grown up with is that the bread has to be unleavened. I mean, that's what I was taught from childhood. I've been like, "Wow, a Pharisee on that," you might say. I mean, it's like, "Man, this bread better be unleavened or yeah, we're sinning against God," etc.

Now, what most Christians don't realize, and I didn't, now I did learn this about 30 years ago, but it was a big surprise to me at that time, is that there's a complete divide between East and West on this issue of the communion bread. Should it be unleavened or should it be leavened? And like I say, we're Westerners, so we've all grown up that it's unleavened bread. That's what the Roman Catholic Church has taught. I don't know if from the beginning, at least from the early Middle Ages, it's been unleavened.

Well, of course, the Protestants and the Anabaptists, we've all come out of the Roman Catholic Church. So yeah, all they knew was unleavened bread, and they followed that. The church in Armenia, not the theological Armenian, but the church in the country of Armenia, it's an ancient church that's been there from early on, probably from the days of the apostles. They use unleavened bread also. And then the Syrian Orthodox Church, it's not part of the Eastern Orthodox, it's not in communion with them.

It's another ancient church, it's Aramaic speaking, and they use unleavened bread. So yeah, it would seem like, well, I guess that's everyone's practice. But on the other hand, you have the Eastern Orthodox, which is a huge part of the world, they use leavened bread for communion. You have the Coptic Church in Egypt. Again, an ancient church, their practice is leavened bread, and they're very dogmatic on that. Okay, then there's the Church of the East. Most people have not heard of this.

This is an ancient church that was planted in the Persian Empire. I think Eusebius says it is certainly their tradition that it was Thaddeus who brought Christianity to them. And like I say, I think that's in Eusebius. I could be mistaken on that. Now, they have a very interesting tradition. I got to know them. Well, they used to be mainly in Iraq, that part of the country.

Now, with the Gulf, not the Gulf War, but when the US brought war against Iraq under Saddam Hussein, unfortunately, it may have been good in some areas, bad, I don't know. I'm not going to get into the politics. It was very bad for the Christians living there because it was the United States who the East would all look on the United States as Christians, that everyone's Christians, even though they're not. And it's like Christians are coming and bombing our country.

And so this ancient church that had been there from the first century, wow, did they get persecuted, and most of them have fled. There's probably still some of them in Iraq, but most of them have fled from there. And a lot of them are in the United States. And I got to know them actually before that had happened, some of their immigrants here in the United States. And their tradition on communion bread, this was definitely new to me. And I'm not going to say I believe this.

Eusebius certainly doesn't say anything about this. But their tradition is that when Thaddeus brought Christianity to them, that he also brought the starter, what we call sourdough, from the bread that the apostles used for communion, that he brought a batch of that dough with him and gave it to the church. And they used that same batch. And I don't know if it goes back to Thaddeus. I'm sure it goes back many, many centuries.

And so when a new church is planted, among other things, when they ordain a bishop there and that, they give a ball of the starter dough. And the priest makes the bread. I was spending the night on a Saturday with one of their priests, and Saturday night, he bakes the bread. And well, he goes, it's a ceremony. He has different prayers, he says, during it, and he's got some of that starter dough, and he puts it in there, and he bakes the bread and brings it the next morning. So that's their tradition.

Then there's the Indian Orthodox Church, again, not part of the Eastern Orthodox, ancient church that goes back to Thomas. And their tradition is that it's leavened bread. So yeah, there's this total divide that here in the West, I was never aware of. I didn't think there was ever any question on it. And like I say, two very different traditions. And the controversy when it gets into, you start getting into discussions with these people, which I've had, it centers on two Greek words.

The first one is azimos, which means unleavened bread. And you will not be tested on this later. I probably won't remember this a month from now. Maybe I will. So azimos is going to be one. The other one is artos, which is the Greek word for just ordinary bread. Okay? So azimos, unleavened bread, artos, leavened bread. Now, which word do you think the Bible uses when it talks about communion bread? Anyone want to take a guess? I shouldn't ask that. No one's going to raise their hand. Mike, were you brave enough?

Yeah. I would have guessed at least that. Yeah, Justin is right. You probably figured whatever looks the least likely is what it is. So every place in the New Testament, when it talks about communion, it uses artos, the ordinary word for bread. You'd expect to find it was azimos. That would have been my guess. I was very surprised. I actually learned this from the Greek Orthodox when I talked to them.

They said, "Well, yeah, go check your Bible." And they explained there's the two Greek words and that it's always artos. And it's like, "Really?" And so I went home and I checked because I thought it was like, "That's hard to believe." And so yeah, it's right. I mean, when Paul talks about it, when Jesus talks about it, all of those, it's artos. When Jesus said, "I am the bread of life. I'm the bread who came down from heaven," artos. When Paul talks about the bread that we eat as the body of Christ, artos.

All the way through, they met the first day of the week to break bread, artos. Like I say, it's everywhere in there. And so the Orthodox is like, "Look, it's clear in Scripture. When it's unleavened bread, it's azimos. When it's ordinary, regular bread, it's artos." Now, they go so far. As I said, both the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic churches, I looked them up online just to see if they were using the same argument. And yes, they point that out on their website as well.

The Orthodox Church at times has declared anyone who uses unleavened bread for communion is anathematized. So we've been anathematized, just in case you're wondering. And you don't know what that word means. It's like you're being cursed, you're being worse, or you're excommunicated and beyond that. So that's how strongly they feel about using unleavened bread for communion.

Now, on the other hand, the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anabaptists, we argue it must be unleavened bread because it was instituted on the Passover. And surely on the Passover, that's the only bread that would have been available. And leaven, Paul uses it to represent sin. So we'd say, "No, it's got to be unleavened bread." And that's what I've argued, like I say, all of my life.

Well, before we get to any kind of answer on this, at this point, like I say, just be aware there's this total split in the church, East and West. But because we're in the West, yeah, we've all grown up not being aware of that. Now, what I don't like is the Western Christians, we've gone to ridiculous extremes to make sure that we're using unleavened bread. And the result is in most churches, not here locally, but in most churches, it no longer looks like bread. I mean, this is what you get in most churches.

I mean, yeah, technically, chemically, it's bread. It's flour, it's water, it's bread. But let me just ask you, if you were over at my house for supper and Deborah said, "Oh, would you like some bread with your meal?" And you said, "Well, yeah." And then she came and put one of those wafers on your plate. What would you think? Like, "This is bread?" Again, I'm not saying it's an invalid communion if you use wafers. I just think this is strange. It doesn't have the sense.

I like the minister being able to break the bread and to distribute it. Now, in the Anglican church, actually, how they do it, they use wafers, but then the minister has a bigger wafer, and he does break that in the service, but he doesn't serve it to people, I mean, because it's still way too small. And then, I mean, I don't know if any of you have had this. I've had it before in churches. If the box didn't say bread on it, I mean, it looks like little goldfish crackers, except it's white, not gold.

But it's like, I mean, it just seems like, yeah, we've lost all sense of getting together and breaking bread because it's got to be unleavened. And if it's a big church, man, that's a lot of work to make bread like this. And so it's, like I say, they've ended up with basically crackers and things like that that seems to be a bit far. I know we don't have to recreate the Last Supper or the first century, but it does seem like appropriate that you have a loaf that you can break and serve it.

So we're going to use unleavened bread, and this is what our church would use something like this most of the time. Now, is there any basis for the Orthodox emphasis on the Greek word? Like, okay, it's artos, so that means it's leavened bread. Well, I was very curious this week, and so I went into the Septuagint. I went there because since it's in Greek, you're always dealing with the same words that you have in the New Testament. So you can go from the New Testament to the Old, and you have the same language.

So I went through Exodus, Leviticus. I spent several hours on this, as I told you. I learned a lot doing this. And the Bible writers are very careful. And I checked the Hebrew later, and it's the same thing. I don't know Greek, but at least I can follow Greek. Hebrew's a little bit over my head. But I noticed in the Septuagint, like I say, I did check the Hebrew, and it is the same that when it's unleavened bread, it's azimos. And when it's leavened, it's artos.

And I mean, sometimes it's in the same sentence, the same paragraph. And I mean, the Bible writer switches words. I mean, it's like they're very careful on those two words. When it's the Passover, it's azimos. When it's Pentecost, the Feast of Firstfruits, a lot of the offerings, it's artos. But then other offerings, it's azimos. I mean, like I say, they're very specific. So I think that the Greek Orthodox do have an argument there that, look, when it's unleavened, the Bible is very specific on that.

But I will tell you, artos means just ordinary bread. It does not exclude unleavened bread. In other words, it means bread. And so unleavened bread would come under that term. So it doesn't prove it has to be leavened, but it does show the Bible writers were not, it was not an emphasis it's got to be unleavened, or they would have just always said azimos. Am I with everyone with me on that? Okay. So no one's going to answer, but would anyone care to guess which Greek word is used for the showbread? 50-50 chance.

Who said that? Hey, very good. Appreciate your bravery. And you're right. So the showbread, I thought it was going to be azimos. It's like, wow, artos. What about manna? What do you think? Artos, yeah. And that's in both the Old and the New Testament. So yeah, it's artos on both of those. So the showbread was leavened bread, but the Passover was unleavened bread. Okay. So all of this evidence we've looked at, here's my opinion, my position. I don't think Christ cares if it's leavened or unleavened.

That's my conclusion. Now, you're free to come to your own conclusion. I do think he expects us to celebrate communion in a respectful and holy manner. I honestly don't think he cares if it's leavened or unleavened. Now, here's some of my observations. I think at the Last Supper, it was unleavened. I cannot imagine there would have been leavened bread even available. So I think the Last Supper, when he instituted it, it was unleavened bread.

But I don't think that communion, because they celebrated it weekly, that they were trying to imitate the Passover every time they had communion. I'm going to guess the Jewish Christians during the week of the, it's a week-long festival of unleavened bread, they probably used unleavened bread in communion. The Gentiles wouldn't have because they wouldn't have been using that. But yeah, since they were having it every Sunday, I'm guessing, yeah, it was ordinary bread most Sundays.

Again, no one can prove this from there. Now, if artos meant specifically leavened bread, then I'd say, okay, it's a shut case. But like I say, the fact that it was every Sunday that they were doing this and Passover was just one day a year, I don't think they were trying to have Passover every Sunday. And then the fact there's such a mixed tradition. I think if Jesus had made and the apostles an emphasis, it's got to be this kind of bread. I don't think you'd have this divide.

I mean, it goes across the whole church. I mean, nearly half of the Christian population across the world, it's leavened bread. The other half, it is unleavened bread. And to me, it's also persuasive that the Greek-speaking Christians, all of those churches, it's leavened bread because, again, of the word artos. Now, it is true that leaven is sometimes used in the Bible to illustrate sin. Paul does one time. It's really only one place.

And then Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees talking about their false teaching or their manner of teaching might be a better way of putting it." But sometimes what we overlooked is Jesus likened the kingdom of God to leaven or yeast. He said, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." So yeah, if you want to pit Scripture against Scripture, yeah, sometimes it's used in a bad sense. Sometimes leaven is used in a good sense.

The kingdom of heaven is leaven. It's supposed to go, and it has gone out to the whole world. There is no spot on earth where the gospel of the kingdom has never reached. It has reached every corner of the earth. It hasn't reached every person on earth, but it's reached every country. I mean, it's just like Jesus said. It is like leaven. So yeah, don't think that, oh, leaven always represents sin because it doesn't. And what was the issue on the Passover night?

Why God said to eat it without not leavening the bread? Does anyone remember? They didn't have time to let it rise. When you use yeast, you have to let it sit for a while for it to rise. So it was the bread of affliction. It was in a hurry that they were going to leave. He doesn't indicate anything about, well, that leaven represents sin or something like that. It was because they were going to be leaving right away in the middle of the night.

Now, the other thing that persuades me on that leavened bread is proper is that the showbread was made from leavened bread, and God declared it to be holy. This is, I'm going to read to you from Leviticus. Leviticus 24:4-9. And this is when Aaron was there. He said, "Aaron shall be in charge of the lamps on the pure gold lampstand before the Lord continually." These are the instructions about the tabernacle. "And you shall take fine flour and bake 12 cakes with it. Two-tenths of an ephah shall be in each cake.

You shall set them in two rows, six in a row on the pure gold table before the Lord." This was in the holy compartment of the tabernacle is what we call or know as showbread. He says, "Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.

And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, for it is most holy to him from the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statue." So the showbread was holy bread. They could only eat it there in the tabernacle. And it's artos. It's leavened bread. So either one can be holy. Unleavened bread of the Passover, showbread in the temple. I think they both prefigure or point to the communion that we eat. I don't think it's just the Passover that points to that.

I think it's the Passover and the showbread both picture it. And you have two different kinds of bread. So I think God is indifferent on that. And like I say, it was interesting looking at those sacrifices, doing this word search. I was doing it electronically where I could put in the strong's number and just, it's like some of the offerings that had to be unleavened bread, some it had to be leavened. It's very interesting.

But I see on God's part that, yeah, either one is acceptable, but he has specific instructions there in the Old Testament. I think if it were important to Jesus as to whether we use leavened or unleavened bread, he or the apostles would have given us specific instructions on it. I mean, there's no instructions. It's got to be made this specific way.

Now, the Orthodox would say, "Well, the fact it uses artos shows it was specific instructions." Yeah, but again, unleavened bread can come under that because it uses artos at the Last Supper. And I'm, like I say, 99% certain that that would have been unleavened bread. I don't know where they would have had leavened bread around. At a minimum, we'd find an oral tradition that had been passed down to the early Christians. They say nothing about it.

None of their writings say, "Well, it's got to be unleavened or it's got to be leavened." They don't say anything about it. And so it doesn't surprise me that then when you look at the ancient churches, yeah, they've come up with different traditions on that subject. Like I say, we find no uniform practice whatsoever. Okay, everyone with me so far? Okay. The issue of crumbs. We're not being actually silly here or facetious or anything. It's a real issue. It's been a real issue among the churches.

I don't think any of us here today believe in transubstantiation. I won't ask you to raise your hand if you do, but I don't actually ridicule. I think people, Catholics, go a little bit far, but I'm not going to ridicule anyone who just takes Scripture for what it means. But I think all of us today, all the members of this congregation anyway, we believe that communion bread is something sacred that should be handled with respect. We're not going to treat it as just something common, but it is something sacred.

So this is where crumbs come in. We don't want bread that makes a lot of crumbs that end up being dropped on the floor and trampled on. I mean, I always feel very awkward when I'm breaking the bread and handing it out. And I feel Christ is present in the bread. I don't know that he's present in every molecule. Well, yeah, you laugh. I mean, many churches believe that. I mean, wow, any crumb, they're going to pick it up.

And I think you can't avoid some of it is going to be lost because, and they wouldn't have understood this in ancient times. But if you can smell something, am I right, Wesley? We got one of the lead scientists here. If you can smell something, it means molecules are coming from that. That is why you smell bread. That is why you smell flowers, whatever. It's molecules coming from that. So it's putting out molecules that who knows where they might be in Kevin's hair. It might be, who knows where it goes.

You're going to have microscopic parts of the bread that do end up on the floor, end up who knows where. So I don't think we can totally avoid that. I think we should be reverent with the bread and not just crumbs all over the floor and that. And that's why those of your members, if you're wondering what on earth, every month we've got a different kind of bread here because we're experimenting.

Sisters are trying to come up with recipes that don't crumble a lot, that we can break the bread easily without a bunch of crumbs. So we've had several different ones. So yeah, that's why I say this is a practical sermon because it's dealing with what we do. So yeah, we've had some pretty good ideas, and there's more than one way to do it. So we've had different kinds of bread that have made very little crumbs. So there's not one answer to that.

So for all the reasons I've been explaining to you, we the elders here believe it's perfectly permissible to use either leavened or unleavened bread just so it doesn't make a lot of crumbs. Now, ordinary leavened bread, boy, is very crumbly. And so that's one reason we would lean more towards certainly a flat bread. But does it have to be? Now, we were talking about some people view leaven as sin. Our English word leaven comes from the Latin word leva, and we see that in the word levitate.

It means to raise or to lift something. Okay? That's what the Latin word and where our English word leaven comes. But the Greek word zume probably meant ferment, probably meant yeast. So azumos, when you have an A in front of the word, it usually means without in Greek. So it's without yeast, without fermentation. So our English Bibles, they use the word leaven. They probably should use the word yeast. Now, of course, in the days of King James, there was no other leavening agent. Yeast was it.

So if you had leavened bread, it was the same as having fermented bread or having bread with yeast in it. There was no other option. Well, there was. I don't think they were aware of it anyway. But what has changed is now there are various modern methods of raising your dough, getting some rise in it without using fermentation. And you've been having on some of our Sundays, I've been having that. Now, baking powder causes the bread to rise through a chemical reaction.

There's a chemical reaction that produces carbon dioxide or some kind of gas molecule, and that makes the bread rise. And it does it instantly. And I'm not an experienced cook. Shake your head, sisters, if I'm wrong on this. But baking powder, you don't have to let the thing sit for a long time. It's pretty instant. It was only invented in the 1800s. It's a fairly new thing around. They did not have it in old times. It was yeast, which is a living thing. And yeah, it ferments.

And when Paul says, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump," well, that's not true of baking powder. I mean, when you're making it, it might seem that way. But if you took a piece of whatever, a cake or something that had baking powder, and you saved that, and then the next time you made cake, you stuck it in the thing, it wouldn't make it rise. Baking powder isn't the same way as yeast. Yeast is living, and that's why it can continue to do that. Now, dough can also be raised mechanically.

It's called mechanical leavening by using air. So if you whip the batter hard, you can introduce air in it and get a little raising there. And that's what the bread we had that Grace introduced when was that July, I think, and people were wondering about it. It actually did not have any leavening agent. She had just whipped it to get air in there, and it made it less crumbly. You can also use beaten egg whites, and you'll make the dough rise a little bit.

So these are some things people have been experimenting with. So like I say, you can do things if you don't want to use yeast and still get it. We're not interested whether it rises or not, but yeah, if it produces something that's less crumbly. So yeah, in case people have been wondering, why is the bread different from month to month? It's because we've been experimenting with these different things. And again, you can use unleavened. Like I say, all of them, it just takes some experimenting.

Now, like I say, these newer methods, if you look in a cookbook, they're called leavening, but none of them use yeast or involve fermentation. I doubt they would violate the original meaning of azumos if you're concerned about that. Like I say, I don't know that Christ is, but if you're concerned, I don't want yeast in here, fine. But there are ways to make bread without yeast. Now, like I say, I don't like bread that's crumbly. I want to have real bread that I can break if I'm serving communion.

You have some sense of following the New Testament. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, to me, have gone to such ridiculous extremes over the issue of crumbs. They've completely destroyed the original manner of celebrating communion. And I appreciate, again, their respect. I'm not belittling them. I do appreciate that they respect the significance of communion. But yeah, sometimes we can go so far. This is a modern-day Catholic communion. I think this is because of COVID, why he's using that little holder.

But for over a thousand years, the Roman Catholic Church, it wasn't until Vatican II in the 1960s that the laity could get the cup. They were afraid you might spill a drop of that. And so you didn't get it. All you got was a wafer in the Catholic Church. Now you get both. But again, they're so afraid of a crumb going astray that the normal method, I've been at Catholic services, as you come up to the railing and you open your mouth and the priest puts it in your mouth so that no chance of a crumb somewhere.

Again, I appreciate what's there. I'd like to say I'm not ridiculing the thought behind that, but it's like I can't, the early Christians don't say anything about, "We only open our mouth and the minister sticks the bread in our mouth." I think, like I say, we go to extremes. We don't want crumbs. And then it's like, "Well, yeah, this isn't even though close to how this whole thing started. You're not breaking bread. It doesn't even seem like bread.

And you're having to be like a little baby and have it stuck in your mouth." The Orthodox, yeah, they go a step further. And I mentioned they use leavened bread. So it's crumbling. So the priest who prepares the bread, he uses a special knife. He actually cuts it. I guess some of those pieces get broken up. And then the crumbs, all these crumbs are put in the cup. And then he spoon-feeds you. Okay. And you notice a deacon there is holding a big bib. Okay. Again, I'm not making fun.

I know they are trying to follow this correct. It does look odd if you haven't seen that. But the thought behind it is not odd. They're trying to do the right thing. But again, I'm thinking, "Wow, this has no thought of breaking. How can you say, 'Yeah, we broke bread this morning?' Instead, I got spoon-fed with a spoon." I mean, that is communion there. So I think we can take this whole thing to ridiculous extremes. Like I say, I think there's a balance. We don't want crumbs all over the floor.

We want to treat it sacred. But boy, to make sure every little drop, I'm not going to spoon-feed any of you. I know when I'm celebrating, we aren't doing that. So we can go to such extremes on the type of communion bread and the avoidance of crumbs that our communion loses all resemblance to the original New Testament communion. Again, we don't have to recreate the Last Supper. I don't think the early Christians did it. Well, I know they didn't because they were having communion in the morning.

They didn't feel we have to have it at night. We have to have unleavened bread. We have to have it right after a meal. I mean, yeah, we're not creating the Last Supper. But I think we as a church want to follow what was similar in the New Testament period. Okay. Any comments or questions? Did I fulfill what I promised? Do you know more? Do you think about communion bread than most ministers? Yeah, I know Tertullian talks about that. I almost put the quote in here. I didn't want to start a whole new thing on that.

But yeah, they were very careful because, yeah, they didn't want them to mouth-seating. I mean, they mentioned that, the sacred bread. So they didn't go through the lengths of, "Okay, we're going to spoon-feed this to you so we don't get one." But they said, "Yeah, we are careful with it." And most of the ancient churches, if they're not putting it in your mouth, which I don't like, you usually hold your hand like this so that, yeah, you do get the crumbs with the bread and it's not just falling all over the floor.

Again, like I say, I don't want to take that to an extreme, but I think we should treat it as something sacred. Yes. Looking forward to the follow-up message on wine versus grape? You're not going to see it. Yeah, keep waiting on that one. Well, Tertullian said you do want unity. So that's why I'm not saying. No, we've actually come up with a nice, I think, compromise in our church. If you want grape juice, you can have grape juice. If you want wine, you can have wine. And we get to have communion in perfect unity.

And I do like that. And so yeah, anyone else? You mentioned that you had a high level of confidence that they didn't have any leavened bread in the Last Supper. Where does that take that confidence? Well, okay, for the feast of unleavened bread, which started the day after Passover, they had to get all of the leaven out of the house. The specific instructions in Exodus or Leviticus is to remove all the leaven from their house, which would have been just dough that had been fermented.

So of course, they were not in a house. They were in an upper room. Yeah, I'm just basing it on that. Now, the Passover, it says that for the feast of unleavened bread, which began on Nisan the 15th, Passover is Nisan 14th. It was celebrated with unleavened bread. But yes, it is possible leavened bread was around. I guess that's what the Orthodox Church would believe. Now, I didn't want to go into this. I started and then I took those slides out.

I'll just briefly mention it just so you can go home more confused in case you're confused. So the narrative in the Gospel of John, when you read it, it sounds like the Passover was on the night of Jesus's, the night after Jesus was crucified. He was crucified during the day and that Passover began that night. That's how it seems to read in the book of John. But then Matthew, Mark, Luke, it seems very clear it's the Passover, like the one we read. And I'm sure they're all correct.

I mean, John, when he wrote it, the other three Gospels had been around for a while. And John, they had all been present there. I mean, Luke and Mark weren't, but I mean, Matthew and John were. So they obviously knew. I know in my mind there is a way those harmonize, but I don't have a dogmatic view on how. So the Orthodox do point to that, that no, this was not, he was wanting to eat a Passover meal, but that was not itself a Passover meal, basing it on John.

Like I say, when I look at Matthew, I can't come to that conclusion. So yeah, even there's a little doubt there on that. And that would allow then for ordinary bread not being unleavened bread if that's the case. I don't know. Some people have said they may have been describing it the way they did because the days were one thing on a Jewish calendar and there was something else on a Roman calendar.

And so if they're trying to explain it to someone who's using a Roman calendar, then it's going to be a different day than the Jewish calendar. The Roman calendar went from sunrise to sunrise. The Jewish went from sunset to sunset. And we go from midnight to midnight. So yeah, any given day could be three different days depending on if you're using the Jewish, the Roman, or our modern one. So that may have been why, yeah, it sounds different. I do not know.

So God has left us with enough doubt, maybe just not be dogmatic about it. I don't like the Orthodox anathematize all of us. On the other hand, I don't like that Westerners are saying, "Well, you're doing something heretical either." Maybe it's one of those things Christ is indifferent. And that's the conclusion I've come to. It just needs to be treated with respect and it's something sacred.