The New Covenant
There are few theological teachings that are
less understood by the majority of Christians than the subject of the New
Sacred Agreement (Covenant) that Jesus inaugurated with his Apostles during his
‘last supper,’ which immediately preceded his death and resurrection. So, what
we will discuss here will start with the ‘type’ – the ‘Old Sacred Agreement’ –
to show what it involved and pictured, and then we will look at the ‘antitype’
– the ‘New Sacred Agreement’ – to see how those prophecies are fulfilled in it.
The Early Sacred Agreements
The first Sacred Agreement that God made with
mankind was the one He made with our common forefather Noah (as well as with
‘all creation’), where God vowed that He would never again destroy all life on
earth with water. And the sign that He provided to remind us of His oath is the
rainbow.
The next Sacred Agreement that He made was with
faithful Abram (at Genesis
God thereafter expanded His Sacred Agreement
with Abram at Genesis 17:1-14, when He changed his name to Abraham and promised
that he would become the ‘father of a multitude,’ his seed would inherit the
land of Canaan, He (Jehovah) would be their God, and that nations and kings
would descend from him (Abraham). However, something would be required of
Abraham and his descendants to fulfill their part of the Agreement; all the
males who were over eight-days old and lived with him had to be circumcised.
The Sacred Agreement With
It is at Exodus 19:5, 6 that we read of God
extending this Agreement once more, when He spoke to the sons of
This Agreement was extended
even more at Exodus 23:24-33, where God said, ‘If you serve Jehovah your God, I
will bless your bread, your wine, and your water, and I will keep you from
getting sick. There won’t be anyone in your land that is impotent or infertile,
and you will live a full life … all your enemies will run from you … I will set
your borders from the Red Sea to the [Mediterranean], and from the desert to
the great Euphrates River … I will hand over those who are living in the land
and drive them away from you. So, you are to make no treaties with them or
their gods.’
We find the children of
Then we read of the next extension to this
Sacred Agreement at Exodus 31:17, 18, where God gave the laws regarding the
Sabbath and the Ten Commandments. So, all of God’s Laws to
The Penalties
It is in Leviticus 26:14-43 that we read of the
penalties the Israelites were to pay if they broke their side of the Agreement.
Note some of the promised results: ‘However, if you choose not to listen to Me and obey My rules … these are the things that I must do
to you … your lives will be shortened … the seeds in your ground
won’t produce … I will send wild animals into the land and they will eat you
and kill your cattle. You will decrease in numbers, and your [land] will become
empty … I will bring a famine of bread among you … you will have to eat the
flesh of your sons and daughters … I will destroy your cities … then I will
scatter you among the nations.’
And no one can deny that all these things truly
happened to unfaithful
Now, did you notice that this first Sacred
Agreement didn’t promise an afterlife? It just promised that; if the people
were faithful they would be blest, and if they weren’t faithful they would be
cursed.
Now, the Israelites did in fact believe in a hereafter, but they
had NOTHING IN WRITING that promised them this. So, those who were faithful
simply trusted that God had something better in mind for them after they died.
Who Were Under the Old Sacred Agreement?
Who were under the Old Sacred Agreement? The
answer to this question is one that seems to elude many Christians. Obviously,
God made His Agreement of ‘the Old Law’ with the descendants of Abraham, and
specifically the Israelites, not with any other nation of mankind. So, although
the Ten Commandments in particular state God’s views on many matters, these
(and the Sabbath Laws) were never given as part of an agreement with mankind in
general. Therefore, people of the nations had no God-given laws or agreements
until after the formation of the Christian Congregation, when they then
accepted the Law of the New Sacred Agreement. And Paul explained that trying to
follow the Old Law was wrong for Christians, because they were under a new Law,
that of Love.
However, the Old Law and Sacred Agreement did
apply to Gentiles (or people of the nations) who lived prior to the time of
Jesus, that chose to join
So, all the people in ancient
The Festivals
There were four primary sacred festivals or
conventions that all the people in
So notice that: Although the Sacred Agreement
was made with the Israelites who descended from Abraham, the Gentiles who chose
to live among them and serve Jehovah had to:
· Be circumcised
· Follow the same laws
· Offer the same sacrifices
· Observe the same festivals.
The New Sacred Agreement
The first indication that there would eventually
be a New Sacred Agreement that would supersede the Old Agreement, is found in
the book of Isaiah, for (at Isaiah 55:3) we read, ‘Listen to Me, and you’ll
have good things for your soul! For, with you I’ll proclaim an Agreement
through the age.’
Then we read at Jeremiah 31:31, 32, ‘{Look!} The days are coming,’ says Jehovah, ‘when with the
house of Israel I’ll make an arrangement, as well as with the house of Judah, and
then I’ll conclude a new Sacred Agreement, that’s unlike the Agreement that I
made with their fathers, in the day that I took hold of heir hands, to lead
them from Egypt’s land. For, they didn’t stick to My Sacred Agreement, so I let
them go,’ says Jehovah.
So, even before
So, according to this scripture, the key
differences are:
· The Law of this Sacred Agreement is to
be written on hearts, not on stone or paper
· Those who are
involved in the New Sacred Agreement will enjoy a special relationship with God
and have a personal knowledge of Jehovah
· Their sins will
be forgiven.
However, this prophecy
wasn’t fulfilled until more that six-hundred years later. And like the Old
Sacred Agreement, it had to be sealed with blood… the blood of the truly
‘perfect lamb,’ Jesus.
The End of the Old Sacred Agreement
In the words immediately
following the terms of the New Sacred Agreement, the end to the Old Agreement
was described in amazing detail. Notice what was written concerning this at
Jeremiah 31:35-37: ‘Thus
says Jehovah, He who appointed the sun to light the day, and the moon and stars
to light the night, the roar of the sea and the sound of its waves, Jehovah the
Almighty is His Name: If these Laws before Me cease to be, then the race
of Israel won’t stand as a nation before Me, throughout the rest of the days.
‘Jehovah says, If
the skies can be raised in their height, and the floor of the ground can be
lowered, I can also reject the race of
When did the (old) Laws cease to be? At
Colossians 2:13, 14 Paul Wrote, ‘Then he kindly forgave all our errors and wiped
away the handwritten Law that held us down and oppressed us. He lifted it out
of the way and nailed it on the pole.’
So, when they murdered God’s Son, the ‘race of
That this rejection of Israel, its Sacred
Agreement and its Laws came about, is undeniable, for with the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70-C.E., the people ceased to be a nation and their entire form of
worship was destroyed with no hope of repair. Their
The Inauguration of the New Sacred Agreement
It was on the same day that
Jesus was sacrificed (which started at sundown the night before, according to
God’s Law) that he inaugurated this New Sacred Agreement with his eleven
faithful Apostles in an upper room in
Then notice what Jesus said
and did (Matthew 26:26-28); ‘As they ate, Jesus took a loaf, and after giving thanks,
broke it and gave it to the disciples saying, Take some and eat it, because
this is my body. He also took a cup [of wine], and after giving thanks,
gave it to them saying, All of you drink out of it, because, this is my
blood of the New Sacred Agreement, which will be poured out for many to
forgive [their] sins.’
We read the same account at
Luke 22:19, 20, which says, ‘Then he took a loaf [of bread], gave thanks, broke it, and
gave it to them saying, This is my body,
which is being handed over for you. Keep doing this in memory of me. And he
did the same thing with the cup after supper, saying, This
cup is the New Sacred Agreement of my blood, which is being poured
out for you.’
So, when the sacrificial blood of Jesus was
poured out, the New Sacred Agreement was inaugurated.
However, did you notice that once again, there
was no promise of a hereafter or of going to heaven? Surely, if this were part
of a written agreement or contract, it should have been mentioned! All that was
promised in the prophecy of Jeremiah (which is the only place where we find the
terms of this New Sacred Agreement) is that God will put His Laws into
their hearts, they will become His people, everyone will know God, and He will
forgive their sins.
Now, you will notice that in many Bibles the
word New is missing in the account found at Matthew 26:26, when speaking
of the Sacred Agreement (or Covenant) that Jesus inaugurated at that time, but this
appears to be a mistake. For, the famous Lamsa translation and the Younan Bible
both use the words New Covenant, as does Shem Tov,
Dutillon, and the Munster Matthew (which are Hebrew translations). Also, Luke
mentioned the New Sacred Agreement in his account of Jesus’ words (Luke
What Are the Laws of the New Sacred Agreement?
As you can see (and as Paul pointed out several
times in his writings), the Old Law just showed men what sin was, and it
condemned them to death whenever they in their imperfection violated it. And
though there were promises of better things, these were never realized, because
nobody (except Jesus) could live up to the Law’s requirements.
And like the Old Sacred Agreement, the New
Sacred Agreement isn’t just a promise like the one God gave to Noah. Rather,
God has requirements for those who wish to participate in it. Exactly what
these requirements will be weren’t specified at the time it was first written
about. However, we were told that these laws would be written in our hearts.
What kind of a law could be written in
hearts? Consider Jesus’ reply, when he was asked which commandment of the
Law was the greatest (as found at Matthew
Then on the night before his death, Jesus gave
this Law to his followers (at John
Paul later explained (at Romans
Then at 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, Paul gave a
comprehensive description of what this Law of love involves. He wrote, ‘Love is
kind and patient. Love isn’t envious, it doesn’t brag, it isn’t conceited, it
doesn’t scheme, it doesn’t just watch out for itself, it doesn’t stir things
up, it doesn’t hold a grudge, it doesn’t rejoice over unrighteous things.
Rather, it rejoices over things that are true. It covers everything, believes
everything, hopes everything, and endures everything. Love never fails.’
So, love is an internal thing. It resides in our
hearts rather that in a book of laws. And if we fully apply this Law in our lives, it will
govern us better than any written code of laws. By practicing love we show
ourselves to be Jesus’ true disciples.
Notice that Paul linked
love with several other positive qualities, such as kindness, patience,
forgiveness, belief, hope, and endurance. However, three of these especially
stand out in his conclusion at 1 Corinthians
Therefore, while this law
involves other internal things such as faith and hope (which must also be
written in our hearts), the greatest portion of it is still love. Love
encompasses all of these other requirements and it serves as an identifying
mark, making us stand out as true worshipers of God.
And although Christians are free of any
oppressive set of rules, this doesn’t mean that we are free to do whatever we
wish. For, when they were faced with the question of circumcision, the Apostles
and elders in the Jerusalem congregation stated that there were certain
‘necessary things’ which all Christians had to follow, namely, they had to
‘stay away from things that are sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things
that are strangled, and from sexual immorality’ (Acts 15:29).
Paul also wrote of many
other bad things that men do… things that a good conscience would forbid. And
he said that people who do such things ‘won’t inherit God’s Kingdom’ (1 Corinthians
The Agreement for Life in Heaven
However (as we pointed out earlier), the New
Sacred Agreement never promised a resurrection to heavenly life, for no
scripture speaks of such a hope ever being offered. And if such a thing were
part of this sacred contract, it surely had to be included somewhere. So, as
the promise of the First Sacred Agreement with
Then Jesus made another agreement (which
was not part of the first) that finally spoke of the hope of a hereafter and of
a resurrection to heaven. And his covenant was only offered to a select few.
His wasn’t an addendum to the New Sacred Agreement, it was another agreement
that he made with those who he said, ‘stuck with me during my trials.’ In fact,
in Matthew’s account, Jesus spoke of this agreement to his Apostles on another
(earlier) occasion (see Matthew
This added agreement was ‘for a Kingdom,’ which
he offered to his eleven faithful Apostles on the eve of his death, and perhaps
on other occasions. We read of this at Luke 22:28-30, where Jesus said,
‘However, you are the ones who stuck with me during my trials, so I’m making a
promise to you, just as my Father made a promise to me, for a Kingdom… that
you may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom and sit on thrones to judge the
twelve tribes of Israel.’
Notice that this special agreement between Jesus
and his Apostles is the only one that promised life in heaven. That it
was a promise of life in heaven is indicated by the words, ‘that you may eat
and drink at my table in my Kingdom and sit on thrones.’
Also notice that these words (that you may eat
and drink at my table in my Kingdom and sit on thrones) carry even greater
significance, for if you look at the methods of the rulership of ancient Hebrew
Kings, such as David and Solomon, you’ll see that those who were invited to sit
at the king’s table were not only his closest friends and advisors, they were
also his primary governors. And the king had them sit and eat with him
at his table, because he always wanted them to be close to him. Thus, when
Jesus told his Apostles that they would eat and drink at his (the king’s) table, he was saying that they would be where he was, in
heaven with his Father Jehovah.
In addition, when Jesus promised his eleven
faithful Apostles that they would ‘sit on thrones and judge the twelve
tribes of Israel,’ he was saying that they were to judge those who comprise
the rest of the arrangement for serving God, those who also claim to be under
the New Sacred Agreement but who were not offered life in heaven. For more
information about what judging the twelve tribes of
As you can see, misunderstanding the difference
between these two agreements shows the insidiousness of the Trinity doctrine.
For, when one believes that Jesus is the God and part of his Father,
he/she doesn’t understand that this was another agreement that Jesus made with
his Apostles, which promised them life in heaven. So, they think that everyone
was offered life in heaven, and although they may have live secular, mundane,
and even immoral lives, they feel that they deserve the same reward as Jesus’
faithful Apostles… they don’t. If that were true, Jesus would have offered the
same agreement to all his disciples, not just to the faithful eleven. For more
information, see the linked document ‘Who Was Jesus?’
But, isn’t the fact that the Bible says
The Two Covenants (contributed subheading)
It becomes obvious that the New Sacred
Agreement and Jesus’ promise of a Kingdom are different things, when
you realize that most Bible translators have taken two different Greek words
and translated them both identically as covenant. For example; in
verse twenty, the Greek word used there is diatheke, which
suggests a will left by a person about to die… it is a disposition of
property, a last will and testament. In other words, this was what Jesus
was going to leave to
Then notice that (in verse 29) the Greek word
which other Bibles translate as covenant is diatithemai.
This means to place separately, manage, arrange,
or make an agreement with a promise. And since it was a promise
that Jesus made directly with his Apostles, it needs no mediator! And
that; if the first Agreement had included the hope of ruling as a king in the
heavens, the second agreement would have been totally unnecessary!
The ‘Type’ of the Old Sacred Agreement
Remember that the first Passover was part of the
tenth plague on the
Now, if we look at the instruction in the Mosaic
Law on how the Passover was to be observed, again we find that
Why, participation in the first Passover was a
requirement for the lives of their firstborn to be spared. And by their
continued celebration of the Passover, the Israelites were expressing their
desire to continue to be a part of the Sacred Agreement that God made with His
people. Likewise, the New Sacred Agreement is the only means for the
forgiveness of sins… and for life!
On the night before his death, Jesus made it
clear to his disciples that the New Sacred Agreement was about to be
inaugurated, and that by their partaking of those emblems they would thereafter
be party to it. So from that point on, the Old sacred Agreement was to be
fulfilled and the New Sacred Agreement was to begin with the shedding of his
sacred blood! And he then commanded them to continue this practice (see Luke
So since that time, all true Christians who
wished to have their sins forgiven, to have a true relationship with Jehovah,
and to receive the ‘life’ that God promised, had to be baptized, and then agree
to be parties to the New Sacred Agreement… they were to cultivate its law of
love in their hearts and display it in their lives. And only then were they to
partake of the emblematic flesh and blood. Also; they were to leave the Old Law
and the Old Sacred Agreement behind, for any turning back to it would show that
they had rejected the New Sacred Agreement.
But what of those who decline the offer to be a
part of this New Sacred Agreement and refuse to partake of the emblematic wine
and unleavened bread? While refusing to do so because of a religious misunderstanding
doesn’t preclude the hope of a resurrection (the Bible says that even ‘the
unrighteous’ receive that), they are really saying that they don’t want
God’s Laws written in their hearts, they don’t want to be His people, and they
don’t want their mistakes and sins to be forgotten.
Who Are Part of the New Sacred Agreement?
If we go back to the Sacred Agreement that was
given through Moses, we find that the entire nation of
But, does this Agreement include everyone who
is baptized… regardless of which ‘Christian’ religion they were baptized
into? Perhaps, for Jesus indicated that all such (by being baptized and
partaking of the emblems of the New Sacred Agreement) become
Notice that Paul doesn’t seem to indicate that
he was speaking of these conditions happening among the world in general
in the Last Days, for people of the world had always acted like that. Rather,
Paul was saying that many who are baptized and partake of the emblems, claiming
to be under the New Sacred Agreement, will in fact prove unfaithful and
will be judged as such. Then Jesus will say to them, ‘I never knew you! Get
away from me you lawbreakers’ (Matthew
Sacred Agreement Only for the ‘Anointed?’
There are some who teach
that the New Sacred Agreement was something that God concluded with just those
‘Anointed’ or elected individuals who will rule with Jesus in heaven. However,
remember that the Old Sacred Agreement was between God and the entire nation
of
‘So, in place of your honor dishonor will be
sent, by Jehovah of Armies, and He’ll send you fire for your glory, then it
will be consumed by the flames, and this fire will then serve as Israel’s
light. He’ll make her holy by burning her in fire, and eat her like
grass in the woods in that day. The mountains, hills, and forests, it will
devour, and will eat the life from the flesh. Then those who flee will be
running from flames, and there’ll be just a few left behind; in fact, a
small child could record their numbers. In that day those remaining in Jerusalem, will
no longer just go along. Those of Jacob who were
saved, will no longer yield to those who have wronged them. Rather; they will
be yielding to God, and to the truth of the Holy One of Israel. Then
strength will return to those of Jacob who remain… those who have put their
trust in their God; and the people of Israel will become as the sands of the
sea, from the small number of them that remained.’
Thus ‘
Now, those who teach that the New Sacred
Agreement is only with the Chosen Anointed also argue that eating Jesus’
symbolic flesh and drinking his symbolic blood signifies that such a person is
‘becoming one’ with Jesus, so it should only be eaten and drunk by those who
are one with him as part of his heavenly bride class. Yet, the Apostles
indicated that
And look at what Paul wrote about the reason why
Christians should all eat the bread and drink the wine (at 1 Corinthians
Aren’t we all to proclaim the death of the Lord
until he comes?
Notice again, who Paul indicates are to partake
of the emblems (at 1 Corinthians
So, the Christian Congregation on earth (who
currently comprise all portions of ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’) is a ‘single
body,’ and all should partake of the loaf symbolizing Jesus’ body, for there
are no two separate ‘bodies’ in true Christianity.
Perhaps the meaning of all this can best be
explained by pointing out what is obvious; We all
share the
Yet, notice how Jesus pointed out the vital need
for all Christians to partake of the sacred bread and wine (his body and blood)
at John 6:53-56. He said there: ‘I tell you the truth; if you don’t eat the
flesh of the Son of Man or drink his blood, you won’t live. For if you chew
my flesh and drink my blood, you’ll have life within yourselves, and then
I’ll resurrect you on the Last Day, because my flesh is truly food and my
blood is truly drink. Those who chew on my flesh and drink my blood will stay
in me and I [will stay] in them.’
As you can see; in order to be resurrected on
the Last Day (not later on with the unrighteous), all must partake of the
sacred emblems. So, this is a life-or-death matter.
Who Should Not Partake of the Emblems
Again, going back to the original Passover,
Jehovah directed that ‘No stranger may eat it,’ and ‘aliens and people you hire
can’t eat it’ until they are circumcised. ‘Then they will be treated as
residents in the land’ (Exodus
Now, although circumcision is no longer a
requirement for servants of God, Paul indicated that there are standards which
Christians who desire to partake of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Evening
Meal must meet. Notice his words at 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, ‘Whoever eats the
loaf and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be held responsible to
the Lord’s body and blood. So, each man should prove what he is first;
then he can eat from the loaf and drink from the cup. For those who eat and
drink, eat and drink judgment upon themselves if they don’t judge [the
worthiness of] their bodies.’
Paul then continued with the instructions that
each individual should ‘judge himself’ and allow himself to be ‘disciplined by
the Lord, so we aren’t condemned along with the world.’
Of course, simply partaking of the emblems of
the New Sacred Agreement doesn’t really mean ‘life,’ unless it is accompanied
by actions… specifically: that we demonstrate the law of love to be written in
our hearts in order to prove our worthiness.
Paul also indicated that there are requirements
for the literal body. Partaking to satisfy our hunger or while we are
intoxicated, shows a lack of respect for the arrangement (1 Corinthians
How Should the ‘Lord’s Supper’ Be
Observed?
The scriptures give us very little direction in
this regard, and historical records are likewise inconclusive. Therefore, we
warn against being dogmatic about any viewpoint. Nevertheless, some things can
be established about the gatherings of early Christian congregations and the
way that they observed the ‘Lord’s Supper.’
The original Passover was a full meal, and
members of the congregations met regularly for loving fellowship meals that
were known as ‘agape’ or ‘love feasts’ (Jude 12). According
to 1 Corinthians 11:20, 21, Christians usually ate the ‘Lord’s Supper’ during
these congregational meals. But, since Paul condemned this course, some
have concluded that a regular meal has no place in the observance of the
‘Lord’s Supper.’ Instead, they should (as Paul said), ‘eat at home.’
However, based on Paul’s words, the argument
could also be made that the problem that Paul was speaking of was actually the
manner in which they ate together. Notice what he specifically condemned. He
said, ‘So, who knows who’s still hungry and who has already had too
much to drink? Don’t you have houses where you can eat and drink? Or do you
condemn the congregation of God and shame those who are poor?’
Then notice his concluding words on the matter
at 1 Corinthians
Since having congregational meals continued as a
practice long after this counsel was given (see Jude 12 And 2 Peter 2:13), it
doesn’t appear as though Paul was condemning the inclusion of meals as a
part of their meetings, but he was addressing specific problems, and especially
when it came to the sacred observance of the ‘Lord’s Supper.’
It appears as though the problem was that some
were bringing food, not for the congregation to share, but for themselves only.
They were also overindulging in wine, so that when the time for the observance
of the ‘Lord’s Supper’ arrived, they were stuffed and sleepy from overeating
and drinking, while the poor ones were likely eating the bread and wine
greedily out of hunger. No wonder Paul gave them such strong council!
Then, what can we conclude is proper for our
observance of the ‘Lord’s Supper?’ Since Paul told the Corinthians to ‘wait for
each other,’ we should celebrate the occasion (if possible) with the whole
congregation. We must also be sober, and we should partake of the emblems not
out of hunger, but with deep appreciation for the New Sacred Agreement and the
sacrifice and provisions of our God Jehovah, and of his son Jesus.
Yet, there is strong evidence that in the early
Christian congregations the Lord’s Supper was (and possible still should be) a
full congregational meal, not just a symbolic partaking of the bread and the
wine.
When Should the ‘Lord’s Supper’ be
Observed?
We don’t actually know when or how often the
early Christians observed the ‘Lord’s Supper,’ other than that it likely took
place during their ‘love feasts.’ So, some have concluded from this that it was
held regularly on several occasions during the year, which may be true. In
fact, notice what Paul wrote was true of early Christian congregations at 1
Corinthians
So, the conclusion might be reached that every
gathering of Christians included a meal, and eating the sacred emblems of the
Lord’s Supper.
However, notice that this sacred meal was
inaugurated on the Day of
Preparation during the Jewish feast of Passover. This is significant,
because that festival represents the saving of
Was it Wine or Grape Juice?
We realize that to many the thought of Jesus
drinking and offering an alcoholic beverage to others there in a Christian
gathering is unthinkable to some. So among some religions, only fresh grape
juice is offered. And as they point out, the words for wine and grape juice are
the same in the Bible. So, they say that Jesus and his Apostles didn’t really
drink alcoholic wine. Yet, this is easily disproved by the fact that Passover
comes in March/April and grapes don’t ripen until mid summer. So, since there
were no freezers or other means of yeast-free storage in that time, it was
virtually impossible to maintain grape juice throughout the year without
turning it into wine or vinegar.
Also notice that part of the Passover festival
required that there should be no yeast in the bread, so we would assume this to
be true of the wine. And the only way to remove all active yeast from grape
juice is to boil it and then ‘can’ it, or to allow the wine to ferment, which
kills all the natural yeast on the grape skins.
Which was true of the wine that Jesus drank? The
words of Luke 5:36-39 make this clear, where Jesus said, ‘Nobody cuts a patch
from new clothes and sews it onto old clothes, for if they do, the new patch
will tear off… and the patch from the new clothes won’t match the old
anyhow. Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the new
wine will burst the wineskins, spilling [the wine] and ruining the wineskins.
So, new wine must be put into new wineskins. Anyone who has tasted old wine
doesn’t want the new anyhow, because they say, The
old is nice.’
Was it Matzos?
Jewish tradition has created many laws about how
the Passover bread was to be prepared, requiring that it must be baked within
just so many minutes of preparation to keep yeast from settling on it and
contaminating it, which has resulted in the common use of a prepared
cracker-like bread called matzos. Yet, other religious groups have set their
own laws for the bread, saying that matzos (because they aren’t made with
whole-grain wheat) shouldn’t be used, and that each person, family, or group
should prepare their own. Which is true?
Well, notice what the account of the original
Passover tells us (Exodus 12:39): ‘Then they baked the dough that they brought
from Egypt into yeast-free loaves (there was still no yeast in the dough),
because the Egyptians wouldn’t allow them to stay, and they had [virtually]
thrown them out, so they didn’t have time to make provisions for their
journey.’
As you can see, the first Passover bread didn’t
necessarily meet the laws of Jewish tradition, for these laws came much later.
It was simply a hastily-prepared bread. Yes, it was
whole-grain wheat, but would they have used filtered and bleached four if it
had been available? Possibly.
If a person wishes to get technical and make up
some rule about the process, note that God’s Law on the matter said (at Exodus
12:19): ‘Yeast must not be found in your homes during those seven days,
and whoever eats anything with yeast [in it] will have his life cut off from
the gathering of Israel. This applies to the native residents of the land, as
well as to those who are just staying there.’
So, must all yeast (and yeast products) then be
removed from the home where the bread is prepared? Well, we could all forsake
the New Sacred Agreement and revert to following the Old Laws, as some would
propose. However, Christians are now under a New Law which doesn’t require the
following of Old Law rituals. The point of eating yeast-free bread and drinking
yeast-free wine is not about bread or wine, it’s a symbol of being free from
sin. So, whether the bread is hard and crunchy like a cracker, or soft and
chewy like normal bread; or whether it is made of whole-wheat or bleached
flour; the point is that it should just be yeast free (as the body of Jesus was
free from sin). And in fact, the original bread may not have even been made of
wheat flour, for that was not specified in God’s law about the bread. It was
just to be yeast-free bread.
The Importance of a Proper Understanding
On the other hand, some say that partaking or
not partaking of the sacred emblems, as we’ve discussed above, really isn’t that
important a matter, because God will make a way for those who don’t understand.
But let’s be reminded of a story of two men, one of whom saw the significance
of a sacred agreement with God, and one who didn’t… one who was a spiritual
man, and one who wasn’t. These men were the brothers, Jacob and Esau.
Now, we likely all remember how Esau sold his
birthright as firstborn
to his brother Jacob for a meal of stew; but have you thought about what Jacob
had actually purchased? The right of firstborn meant that he was to receive
twice as much of the inheritance of his father’s belongings. Yet, Jacob
willingly left all that inheritance behind to his elder brother when he fled
the land, for the important (sacred) thing to him was his father’s blessing and
the promises of the Sacred Agreements that were made with his father Isaac and
his grandfather Abraham. He saw the spiritual, while his brother only
saw the carnal, so he became
Therefore, whose path do those who don’t see the
importance of properly observing God’s New Sacred Agreement following; that of
Esau or Jacob?
Realize that all the sacred agreements discussed
above were life-or-death matters (especially for
So, should any religious group tell their
members that they are no part of the New Sacred Agreement, when all Christians
should be; that they should not partake of the sacred emblems, when all
Christians should do so; and that their resurrection will not be one of life,
but as part of ‘the rest of the dead’ of unrighteous mankind, these millions
are literally being robbed of their hope of:
This should be a most serious matter to all
spiritual people!
To return to the previous page, click the
browser Back button
The New Covenant.-From
2001 Translation’s Commentary