Growing up in a Messianic Jewish home, I always looked at the Gospel accounts and saw Yeshua celebrating the seder in the same way my family did. We participated in a rich history that went back far beyond our Lord. Yeshua dipped His bitter herbs, reclined at table, and drank four cups. We were continuing this ancient tradition.
When I started my thesis work, I began to see a very different picture emerge. What Yeshua was doing was much more cultural in nature. Beyond this, the seder traditions I was used to were not put into place by the rabbis until much later. This was a difficult pill to swallow and to this day many Messianic believers reject the clear evidence that the Passover seder and many of its traditions as we have it today are quite late.
What is written below is not an attack on Jewish tradition or the celebration that many will have in their home’s this year. I myself celebrate Passover every year and it is my favorite holiday. Rather, it is a work meant to show the evidence of what Yeshua was doing at His table. Beyond this, it is my contention that the tradition’s many Jews celebrate today were first practiced as cultural traditions in the first century by the Romans and the Jews living under Roman rule.
The work below is a portion taken from my thesis which has yet to be published (and perhaps never will).
Meal Tradition
Meal customs within the first century can give us even more evidence in support of the longer reading in Luke to be original. Scholars are split on the nature of the table elements seen within the later rabbinic writings, and where these traditions began. Some suggest the descriptions given within the Gospels are specific to first-century Jewish Passover tradition that are carried through posterity until the compiling of the Mishnah and Tosefta. Others have argued that what has previously been understood as Jewish table customs, or Passover tradition, is more likely Greco-Roman in origin. For instance, John 13:26 talks of Yeshua dipping and giving to Judas:
Yeshua answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. (John 13.26)
C.K Barrett sees this as the tradition put forward in the Mishnah of dipping bitter herbs in haroseth (m. Pes. 10:3)1 and believes the dipping of bitter herbs was a tradition in the first-century Passover celebration but suggests it was at the beginning of the meal, thus making the account in John more likely about bread after the meal:
“There is some uncertainty as to the nature of τὸ ψωμίον, literally “the little bit,” that Jesus dipped in the dish. The term was commonly used of bread, sometimes of meat. In the Passover meal green and bitter herbs were dipped in a dish of fruit puree, but this took place in an introductory course, prior to the main meal, and the impression is given by the Evangelist that the meal by this time was well advanced (cf v 2).2
Yet, Greco-Roman banquet tradition was to share from communal bowls,3 and archaeological evidence suggests this custom was adopted by Jewish communities as well.4 In discussing dipping bitter herbs the Mishnah itself eludes to communal bowls being used within common meals.
“For on all other nights we dip our food one time, but on this night, two times.” (m.Pesahim 10.4 MISH-N)
This confirms that at the time the Mishnah was written, the dipping of morsels, and/or the sharing of communal bowls was still practiced within Jewish common meals (something that still occurs with various near eastern cultures today). It is therefore, more likely that the incorporation of eating bitter herbs as a specific custom at the Passover table was a later attempt to recall and continue the command of Ex. 12:8 that prescribed the Passover sacrifice to be roasted with bitter herbs, but was never a specific element at the Passover ceremony within the first century. This same line of reasoning can be applied to other aspects of the Last Supper as well.
Jeremias argues that Yeshua and His disciples reclining at table is clearly a sign that the Last Supper was a Passover meal:
Wherever the gospels speak of reclining at meals they mean either a meal in the open (the feeding of the multitudes), or a party (Mark 12.39 par.; 14:3 par.; Luke 7.36, 37, 49; 11.37; 14.15; John 12.2), or a feast (Mark 2.15 par., especially Luke 5.29), or a royal banquet (Mark 6.26 par.), or a wedding feast (Matt. 22.10,11; Luke 14.8, 10), or the feast of the salvation time (Matt. 8.11; Luke 13.29, cf. 16.23). There are only two exceptions to this rule: Luke 24.30 and [Mark] 16.4…
It is absolutely impossible that Jesus and his disciples should have reclined at table for their ordinary meals. How is it then that they recline at table in the case of the Last Supper? There can be only one answer: at the passover meal it was a ritual duty to recline at table as a symbol of freedom, also, as it is expressly stated, for ‘the poorest man in Israel’.5
Jeremias’ last quote is taken from m.Pes. 10:1 and t.Pes. 10:1 which both state the same thing: אֲפִלֻּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵ׳ לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיֵּסֵב (Even the poorest in Israel should not eat until he reclines). Pitre notes that these rabbinic texts are later, but sees this as tradition that has continued from the first century:
Although these rabbinic parallels are certainly later then the Gospels, they provide a plausible explanation for John’s description of the disciples’ posture at the Last Supper, which coheres with and is perhaps even meant to emphasize that the meal took place on the night the Passover was eaten.6
Lanuwabang Jamir believes reclining had been adopted by many Jewish groups during this time:
Meals in general became the ground of social and religious distinction between Jews and non-Jews, and helped them to maintain their identity. At the same time, there are many similarities between the Jewish practices especially in the intertestamental period to that of the Greco-Roman customs. There can be no doubt that the Greco Roman practices have made their mark in Judaism. For example, during this period, in Jewish society reclining had become the standard posture at both social and religious events.7
As seen above, Jeremias claims the posture of reclining was reserved for special occasions, however, this view finds little support from the evidence. Dennis Smith gives ample documentation that reclining at table was common practice among the Romans, but possibly adopted into Jewish culture as well.8 Indeed, the earliest evidence we have of a reclining posture at table is in a relief of Ashurbanipal, dating to 645-635BCE:9
A famous relief of Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC) depicts the king reclining on a couch and his queen seated with musicians in attendance in a palace garden. This is the earliest evidence of reclining, a posture which was later widely adopted by the Greeks, Romans, and Jews.10
Reclining was not, however, the posture practiced at Qumran, as Jodi Magness has noted:
Josephus’s use of the term kathisanton and the absence of couches in the communal dining rooms at Qumran indicate that the sectarians sat when they ate instead of reclining in the Greco-Roman manner. Lawrence Schiffman has observed that sectarian scrolls describe participants in the messianic banquet dining while seated instead of reclining.11
This is most likely specific to the Qumran sect as evidence points to other Jewish sects reclining in Greco-Roman fashion. In a lecture presented at the 2017 Evangelical Theological Society in Providence RI. John Taylor stated:
Triclinia, three-sided dining halls with benches for reclining, have been found in ancient synagogues in Ostia (near Rome) and in Jericho. There is rabbinic evidence of Jewish eating clubs or associations, which met sometimes in triclinia.12
Further investigation into this claim would need to be made as Smith makes reference to Ben Sira and the Mishnah, but finally suggests:
Indeed, the Mishnah may simply be preserving, anachronistically, the older custom of reclining in an age when customs were changing to sitting at the table. In the final analysis, the issue of posture at the table in Ben Sira and its checkered textual history remain obscure.13
The debate does not stop here. It is arguable whether the reciting and/or singing of hymns originated in Jewish circles and was adopted by the Greco-Roman symposium or vis versa. Theological exhortation and debate such as Yeshua’s words in John 13:12-16:33 could be argued as traditional for the Passover celebration (t.Pes. 10:12), or adopted tradition from the symposium.14
Certainly this same approach can be presented when discussing the presence of multiple cups at table. Four cups of ceremonial wine are found within the later Passover Haggadah put forth by the Mishnah (m.Pes. 10:1-9). Darrell Bock associates the two cups in Luke 22:17-20 as set tradition in the Passover meal that was carried on into the Mishnaic times:
The next issue is to what does this first cup refer? The traditional Passover meal had four cups (m. Pesah. 10; Firzmyer 1985: 1390; Marshall 1978: 797-98): (1) with the preliminary course to bless the day; (2) after a liturgical explanation for why the day was celebrated and coincide with the singing of Hallel Psalms; (3) following the meal of lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs; and (4) following the concluding portion of the Hallel Psalms (it is debated whether this fourth cup was used in the first century; Bahr 1970). Which of these cups is alluded to [in] 22:17?15
Later rabbinical writings incorporate multiple cups of wine into the Passover celebration, but it can be argued that within first century Judaisms, multiple cups of wine were present due to adopting the surrounding culture’s meal traditions. When talking about the Greco-Roman order of the banquet meal, Smith references Diodorus Siculus who lived from 90 BCE to 30 CE. Smith states:
The wine ceremonies varied somewhat from place to place, but the description provided by Diodorus Siculus is considered representative: “It is the custom, they say, when unmixed wine is served during a meal to greet it with the words, ‘To the Good Deity! [agathou daimonos]’ but when the cup is passed around after the meal diluted with water, to cry out ‘To Zeus Savior! [Dios Sótéros]’” (4.3). Other sources agree that the first libation was given with unmixed wine and was dedicated to the “Good Deity,” but in some cases this libation was given immediately after the meal rather than during it. The second ceremony connected with Zeus Savior refers to the wine mixing that took place just prior to the drinking party proper. The first cup from the bowl of mixed wine was dedicated to Zeus Savior.16
It should be noted that within the Greco-Roman tradition, specific cups at the banquet are given significance. One cup has a traditional saying (or liturgy) associated with different deities. This is not to say that every cup within the Greco-Roman banquet had such significance but there was tradition concerning at least some of the cups within the meal. Smith goes on to note that three bowls were used. The first ladle from each bowl was dedicated to a specific deity (Olympians, Heroes and Zeus Savior, respectively) as it was ladled into a cup:
The host or symposiarch would then pronounce the name of the deity again and pour out a portion into the fire or onto the floor. He would then take a sip and pass the cup around for each guest to sip, saying the name of the deity in the genitive as they did so.17
While these customs are associated with pagan deities, the basic structure of the banquet itself may have been common table practice, adopted within multiple cultures in and around the Greco-Roman world. This banquet structure was most likely adopted by Jewish sects, not as a religious custom, but rather as cultural. Yeshua gives specific (ceremonial) meaning to the bread by associating it with His body18 and the cup with His blood,19 giving some parallel to the surrounding cultural custom, no matter who instituted it first. The presence of ceremonial wine within first century Jewish meals can also be seen in the Qumran sect, as they placed ceremonial significance on wine at the beginning of a meal by reciting a blessing over the first cup.20
The presence of wine at the Passover celebration could very well date to long ago. Certainly libation offerings were prescribed within the Torah, but the first time wine is associated with the Passover meal itself is in the book of Jubilees, dated to 200BCE:
For on this night there was the beginning of the feast and there was the beginning of joy… And all of Israel remained eating the flesh of the Passover and drinking wine and praising and blessing and glorifying the LORD the God of their fathers… For it is an eternal decree and engraved upon the heavenly tablets for all of the children of Israel that they might observe it in each and every year in its day once per year in all of their generations… And (as for) the man who is purified and does not come so that he might observe it on its appointed day to bring a gift which is acceptable before the LORD and to eat and to drink before the LORD on the day of his feast, that man who is purified and nearby shall be uprooted because he did not bring a gift of the LORD in its (appointed) time. (Jubilees 49.2, 6, 8, 9)
Two observations should be made about this text. 1) The wine is seen in association with eating the Passover lamb as a commandment. 2) This text assumes the drinking of wine on Passover dates back to the Exodus itself. These observations should not be overstated, they do however, give us the understanding that at least some groups prior to the First Century believed wine to be a central part of the Passover celebration. Although wine is commanded at the Passover meal in Jubilees, we are unaware of how this text was viewed by various groups in the first century. We can not assume this passage and its ritual halachah was accepted across various Jewish sects and communities.
Like Bock, Robert Brody wants to locate the Mishnaic tradition of four cups as an early custom. Brody interacts with Shamma Friedman who believes the four cups were a creation by the compiler of the Mishnah. Both Brody and Friedman compare the Tosefta which only mentions the first cup (כוס ראשון) in t.Pes. 10:2, with no mention of any other cups. Although long, I believe it appropriate to quote Brody at length, since it will show two competing understandings of the tradition:
Friedman looks at this material from a different angle but he too argues for a late dating of the portrayal of the Seder presented in the Mishnah. In his opinion the entire framework provided by the four cups of wine is an editorial innovation of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, the editor of the Mishnah. Friedman makes much of the fact that this framework is absent in the Tosefta, except for the mention of the first cup in Tosefta 10:2, which he takes to be a late addition to the Tosefta in the wake of Rabbi Judah’s innovation in the Mishnah. But once again, the Tosefta only elaborates on selected topics and does not present a narrative or description of the Seder, and so there is no reason to expect it to mention each of the four cups.
Friedman’s only real argument in support of his hypothesis, aside from the fact that only the first cup is mentioned in the Tosefta, seems to be his conjecture that the ceremonial aspects of the Seder meal, including the four cups of wine, postdate the destruction of the Temple. But even if we were to accept this conjecture, a great deal of time passed between the destruction of the temple and the redaction of the Mishnah, and there is no reason to date the various ceremonial aspects of the meal to the end of this period rather than its beginning. In my opinion the framework provided by the four cups is very deeply embedded in the structure of the Mishnah and other items (at least mishnahs 5-6, and perhaps 3 and part of 4) have been inserted within it; it is hardly likely to have been superimposed on the existing material by its last redactor.21
Brody is critical of Friedman’s suggestion that the four ceremonial cups in the Passover Haggadah are inserted by Judah the Prince, yet, Brody has no concrete evidence that the four cups go back any further than the Mishnah.
Baruch Bokser argues that the Passover Haggadah was an attempt to continue the Passover celebration after the destruction of the temple, and that these traditions were not formed anew, but expanded from first century tradition. Bokser admits, unlike Brody, that multiple cups of wine could be originally taken from the Greco-Roman tradition:
The groups in question are not identical in their conception of the meal though they draw upon analogous notions. All of the groups assume the importance of the temple, and draw upon temple concepts and earlier examples of extra temple practices, which they perceive in terms of the temple. The Hellenistic culture these groups shared in common contributed to their increased receptivity to alternatives to a central temple and may have influenced their choices of the features to be developed from the ancient heritage. It is therefore not surprising that rabbinic circles may have drawn upon banquet practices to enrich what they were doing. It is unlikely, however, that they were prompted to expand the biblical rite by their observation of Hellenistic symposia or on account of their knowledge of the symposia literature.22
The adoption and integration of Greco-Roman tradition may be in line with the formation of other traditions found within the Mishnah. Israel Yuval has argued that parts of the Passover traditions found within the Mishnah are direct responses to Christianity as opposed to traditions handed down through Jewish generations. Yuval challenges the traditional assumption that Judaism always influenced Christianity and not the other way around:
The Jewish view that sees Judaism as always influencing Christianity, but never the other way around, is theologically grounded, based on the assumption that Judaism is the mother-religion of Christianity. But early Christianity and tannaitic Judaism are two sister religions that took shape during the same period and under the same conditions of oppression and destruction. There is no reason not to assume a parallel and mutual development of both religions, during which sometimes Judaism internalized ideas of its rival rather than the other way around.23
Yuval’s work on this subject shows that the compilers of the Mishnah were not opposed to creating tradition in order to answer opposing beliefs, and to adopt popular tradition and give it new meaning. At the very least we must contend that the earliest reference to multiple ceremonial cups found in a Passover celebration is contained within the Gospels themselves, far predating the Mishnah’s tradition. Since Greco-Roman culture most certainly influenced various customs within Jewish sects of the time (communal dishes, reclining at table, etc), in particular Yeshua’s own customs, it can certainly be argued that the ceremonial cups were also adopted from the surrounding culture. If we view the Last Supper accounts with these specific cultural aspects in mind the two cups fall perfectly into place.
The Significance and Meaning of the Bread and Cups
Bradshaw’s suggestion that Yeshua’s declaration of abstinence from wine in Luke 22:18 is evidence that the shorter reading of this passage is original can now be looked at in more depth. As stated above the Qumran sect recited a blessing over the first cup and bread before a meal:
And [when] they gather at the table of community [or to drink] the new wine, and the table of community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed] for drinking, [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of bread and of the [new wine] before the priest, for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-fruit of bread and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the bread before them. Aferwards, the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand twoards the bread. [And afterwards, shall] bless all the congregation of the community, each [one according to] his dignity. And in accordance with this regulation they shall act at each me[al, when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered.24
This text is similar to 1QS 6.4-6 but differs with the mention of the “Messiah of Israel” and his role within the meal. In reference to this Qumran text Magness writes:
… The reference to bread and wine is symbolic of a meal that included food and drink, since bread was a staple. It also reflects the fact that it was specifically the bread and wine that were blessed. The order of blessing the bread first and then the wine in this passage of 1QS follows Genesis 14:18 (the blessing of Melchizedek) and is the same in the Synoptic Gospels’ account of Jesus’ last supper.25
Bread and wine being a representation of the entire meal is not exclusive to the Qumran sect, but is certainly a debated issue. As mentioned above the Roman tradition was to begin the meal with bread and a ceremonial cup of wine:
The meal pictured here [in 1Cor. 11:23-26] has the following features of a normal Greco-Roman banquet: (a) benediction over the food, represented by the bread; (b) the division of the meal into deipnon (mentioned in the text) followed by symposium (implied by the wine blessing); (c) a benediction over the wine making the transition from deipnon to symposium. It is clear, therefore, that the Greco-Roman banquet form provides the backdrop for this tradition.26
Smith contends that although many scholars have attempted to understand what meal tradition the Eucharist was influenced by, we should more rightly understand that all meals within the first century took on some common form:
Formal meals in the Mediterranean culture of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the period encompassing the origin and early development of Christianity, took on a homogeneous form. Although there were many minor differences in the meal customs as practiced in different regions and social groups, the evidence suggests that meals took similar forms and shared similar meanings and interpretations across a broad range of the ancient world… Thus I propose that all special usages of meals draw from the same common tradition, the tradition of the banquet.27
With this structure set forth, it is my suggestion that Luke’s Gospel gives a more clear and in-depth picture of the meal as a whole. Luke 22:7 tells us that it was ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν ἀζύμων, [ἐν] ᾗ ἔδει θύεσθαι τὸ πάσχα (the day of unleavened bread on which the pascha was to be sacrificed). Yeshua then tells His disciples to go “ἑτοιμάσατε ἡμῖν τὸ πάσχα ἵνα φάγωμεν” (prepare the Pascha in order that we can eat it). Verse 13 tells us that they καὶ ἡτοίμασαν τὸ πάσχα (prepared the Pascha), and in verse 15, we are given Yeshua’s first declaration of abstinence:
And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
(Luke 22.15–16 NAS95)
Whether Yeshua’s abstinence of “it” here is a reference to the Passover lamb specifically, or to the Passover meal as a whole is of little importance,28 since the central aspect of the Passover meal in the first century was the Passover sacrifice itself. Thus, if the Passover lamb is being specifically mentioned it can still be a representation of the Passover meal in total. Thus, Yeshua is declaring He will not take part in the Passover meal again until it is done in the Kingdom. It seems at this point the meal has yet to take place (see verse 20). The first ceremonial cup of wine along with the bread that is used to bless the Lord is presented, these elements are like the Passover lamb in that they are a representation of the deipnon. Yeshua restates His abstinence over the ceremonial cup of wine but this, like the lamb, is a representation of the celebratory meal in total. As argued above,29 the wine that is referenced by Yeshua was ceremonial, a point made stronger by the words ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον (In the same way also he took the cup) in 1Cor. 11:25. This phrase connects the ceremonial aspects of the opening benediction over the bread and places it on the cup following the deipnon. The vocabulary used points to ceremonial meaning as well, as all three Synoptic Gospels use the phrase γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου (fruit of the vine) when Yeshua proclaims abstinence rather than οἶνον or ὄξος. The phrase used takes on ceremonial meaning in later rabbinic literature.30 This cup would serve not only a ceremonial function, but would also mark the end of the meal proper and begin the next portion of the banquet.31 Both the abstinence from the lamb and the abstinence from the wine should be understood as abstinence from the Passover meal as a whole, the meal and the ceremonial aspects. Thus, Yeshua’s words should be understood as “this is the last Passover I will partake of until I do so in the Kingdom,” rather than an abstinence from wine (or lamb) in and of itself.32
Yeshua marks the end of the deipnon with the second ceremonial cup of wine that is now representative of the second portion of the banquet. We see this specifically in the text of Luke and 1 Corinthians with the phrase, “μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι” (after they had eaten). The abstinence from both the lamb and the wine are important. If the abstinence had been only given to the sacrificial lamb, the implication could be that Yeshua would not partake of the Passover sacrifice until in the Kingdom. If abstinence was only given to the wine, it could mean any ceremony or celebration. Rather, the abstinence from the lamb and from the wine combined both the ceremonial elements of the Passover ritual with the central aspect of the meal itself. By declaring abstinence from both wine and the lamb Yeshua is declaring abstinence to the Passover banquet as a whole.
What is Meant by “τοῦτο” (This)
With the above argument in mind we may now turn to Yeshua’s words in verse 19. The key phrase that we will now focus on is, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (do this in remembrance of me), a phrase found in Luke 22:19 as well as in 1Cor. 11:24. Paul’s account of this story place the words of institution before the meal while Luke locates them after the meal proper. Paul, however, gives a parallel to these words after the supper has taken place which states, “τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν” (Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me). If the phrase was used twice or was slightly altered, this gives more weight to the suggestion that Yeshua is referring to the entire meal as the double statement before and after the meal proper would bookend the consumption of the Passover lamb.
For centuries Christianity has believed Yeshua was instituting a new ritual, however, this interpretation comes with the Eucharistic tradition already in mind. If we read the context of this passage along with the wording itself, the interpretation that Yeshua is instituting a new ritual comes by reading later Christian tradition back into the text.
As already stated above the meal is framed with the preparation and eating of the πάσχα (pascha) a word that is used six times in chapter 22. Yeshua now proclaims “do this…” (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε). The language employed here can be found within the Passover narrative of Exodus 12 where Moses tells Israel they are to “do” (ποιήσει) the Passover.
All the congregation of Israel are to do (ποιήσει) this. “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and does (ποιήσει) the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to do (ποιῆσαι) it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. (Exodus 12.47–48)
The pronoun τοῦτο (this) has already been used in Luke 22:15 when Yeshua stated:
I have earnestly desired to eat this (τοῦτο) Passover with you before I suffer. (Luke 22.15)
In 15 there is no doubt the pronoun τοῦτο is in reference to the Passover (πάσχα) and with this as the context I believe the most plausible interpretation of τοῦτο in verse 19 is, once again, in reference to the Passover. What is more, Yeshua says to “do this in remembrance…” (ἀνάμνησιν), something that should bring our minds back to Ex. 12:14:
Now this day will be a memorial (μνημόσυνον) to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD (Exodus 12.14 NAS95)
Both ἀνάμνησιν in Luke 22:19 and μνημόσυνον in Ex. 12:14 are derived from μιμνῄσκομαι. Of course there is a significant difference between Yeshua’s words in Luke 22:19 and that of Ex. 12, Yeshua tells His disciples to do this in remembrance τὴν ἐμὴν (of me), whereas Ex. 12 specifically tells us the Passover celebration is to be done as a memorial “to the LORD” (καὶ ἑορτάσετε αὐτὴν ἑορτὴν κυρίῳ).
The implications of Yeshua’s command to do this in remembrance of Him are huge. As has already been shown the focus of the Passover meal was in fact the Passover lamb. To eat the Passover was to partake in the sacrificial lamb. For Yeshua to now say this meal was to be done in memory to Him is to include this sacrifice. Sacrifices were only to be done to YHVH (Ex. 20:5; Lev. 17:2-4) as was the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 12:11).
It is my suggestion that Yeshua’s proclamation to “do this in remembrance of me,” is not to institute an entirely separate ritual but is rather to refocus the significance of the Passover meal to the salvation we have through Christ and His blood on the cross while at the same time making a bold declaration of deity. Since sacrifice can only be done to YHVH Yeshua is, therefore, proclaiming Himself to be YHVH.
Get notified about new posts, products, and interviews. We never share information and we only send emails we’d like to receive.
