Thursday, July 10, 2025

"The Disputatio of the Latins and the Greeks, 1234" and the Debate Concerning the Use of Leavened Vs. Unleavened Bread (azymes)

  

22. On Friday [April 27, 1234] morning we approached the palace of the Emperor, where the council had assembled. And first the Emperor began to speak, saying: ‘Even if the prelates had promised to answer you, it is still not surprising if they wished first that the confusions they had over the letters of the lord Pope should be explained to them.’ To that we answered: ‘We said then and we still say now that after they have satisfied us on our question, we will then be prepared to reply not just to that ambiguity but to all other doubts which arise in the question.’ Then, after taking counsel with the Emperor and other prelates, the Patriarch answered first: ‘And we also will answer you.’ Next, the archbishop of Amastris began to speak in this way: ‘You ask if the body of Christ can be accomplished in azymes; and we answer that it is impossible.’ Therefore, wishing to understand his meaning it cannot be done by law, or because it cannot be done at all. And they answered: ‘Indeed, because it cannot be done at all, because we know that the Lord himself used leavened bread, and so gave it to the Apostles. Whence the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11: I received from the Lord that which I passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took arton etc. Peter and other Apostles, just as they received [the tradition in this form] from the Lord, in the same form they also passed [the tradition] to the four patriarchal churches. So Peter passed [the tradition] to Antioch, John the Evangelist [passed it[ to the churches which were in Asia, Andrew [passed it] to the churches in Achaias, James [passed it] to Jerusalem, and again, blessed Peter [passed it] to blessed Clement, and thus it was first celebrated in the Roman Church, as we believe. This is why we say this, that it cannot be done [using] another bread—that is in the leaven.’ Listening to his heresy, we asked each one separately, first the Patriarch of Nicaea, next [the Patriarch] of Antioch, then each prelate individually, if this was their faith, and if they believed it. And they answered separately: ‘This is our faith, and we believe this.’ (The Disputatio of the Latins and the Greeks, 1234 [trans. Jeff Brubaker; Translated Texts for Byzantinists 12; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 176-77, italics in original; first comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

On the quote of 1 Cor 11:23:

 

According to the friars, the disputants make a clear difference between artos, the Greek word for bread, and the Latin word panis. (Ibid., 177 n. 19)

 

 

The Eastern Orthodox representatives presenting their view on leavened bread and the Eucharist:

 

23. On the Sabbath [April 29, 1234], after a meal, we were summoned to the council, and both sides offered their documents. They presented their own document to us first, the contest of which were as follows: The most honourable apocrisarii of the most holy Pope of older Rome asked us if it is possible to complete the anemakton that is, the sacrifice of the body of Christ, in azymes. And we answered that this is impossible for men who wish to follow the new grace, as it [was handed down] from the beginning in the tradition of the Saviour. Indeed he passed it on to his own holy disciples and apostles through [the use of] leavened bread, according to the words of the Gospels. And they likewise passed on the mystery in this form, just as they themselves received [it], as it is written in the wors of the magister Paul to the Corinthians [1 Cor 11:23-26 quoted] Therefore, we have received from the well-regarded Apostles, just as they received from Christ, and thus the four ecclesiastical dioceses of the world maintaining right up to the present day; indeed, we judge that the diocese of elder Rome also received [it] and will continue to hold [it] in this way. For this reason we say that one cannot consume the sacrifice through azymes, as azymes arise from his part, which was free of legal servitude. And indeed we have written these things as a summary, in accordance with the desire of the apocrisarii, who could not endure to hear more. If, however, the authorities and evidence for our argument are required of us, then we will extend our argument from both the old and new Testament.

 

In the month of April, the seventh indication, signed by me, the Chartophylax of the most holy great church of God of Constantinople on the order of the universal [Patriarch] of the most holy patriarchs, of the [Patriarch] of the great Teupolitan city of Antioch, and of the bishops who were present with them. (The Disputatio of the Latins and the Greeks, 1234 [trans. Jeff Brubaker; Translated Texts for Byzantinists 12; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 178-80, first comment in square brackets added for clarification)

 

 

After the Roman Catholic representatives presented their own document:

 

25. After reading this document, we gave it to the Patriarch of Nicaea and to everyone listening we said: ‘You have given us your writing which contains heresy. And know this, what whoever believes what is written in your document, the Roman Church considers such a person as a heretic. Nevertheless, because a defense of heresy makes a heretic, we wish to know why you say such things. There can be two reasons why you say this: ignorance or malice. Therefore, we are prepared to show the truth to you, exposing you to be creators of lies, so that when you have seen the truth, the heresy that you say may cease and be revoked. Or, if it does not case, we may know that what was said all this time was out of malice, and that you are heretics. But because we do not have judges, let the books, namely the old and new Testament, and the writings of the saints, be brought forward and let them decide between us and you.’ And it is astonishing to tell, when everyone there looked among themselves for the books, they were unable to find a single Old or New Testament. Therefore, wishing to show that they were deceitful in all things, we asked why they said that the Lord had made his body in leavened bread. And they answered: ‘We have that in the Gospel of Luke, that the Lord took the arton, broke it etc.’ And we added: ‘What does arton mean?’ They answered: ‘It means completed bread, risen bread, leavened bread.’ And we asked if arton everywhere stands for leavened bread. And they responded: ‘No, because from time to time arton is used on its own, and from time to time it is used with the adjective. When it is used on its own, it indicates leavened bread. Ahen [it is used] with the adjective, as in Leviticus VII, unleavened arton, there is, so to speak, a contradiction in the adjective, as when one says: a dead man.’ And again we asked: ‘If arton is used on its own, does it always indicate leavened bread?’ They answered that it did not. For whenever it is used on its own, it is kept in its proper [sense] and then it is always kept [in a sense of being] leavened. And whenever it is used improperly, then it indicates azymes. Therefore, arton used on its own retains both senses; it does not always mean leavened, nor does it always mean unleavened, but sometimes it means the one, sometimes it means the other. Therefore, the arton used in its own stands for bread, and does not specify [what kind]. Therefore, what you say concerning the Gospel supports our case as much as it supports yours. And this is what our Gospels call bread [panem], where you have arton. Likewise, we find in Leviticus 7, where it is dealing with the law of peace offerings, leavened arton and unleavened arton, according ot the letter of the Greek text. When they are specifically different they are referred to as azymes or leavened arton, but arton on its own can be used for either of them in common, equally for one or the other. Neither genus is used more or less properly as the predicate than the other. Therefore, your distinction, which you made about proper and improper [usage], was meaningless. Therefore, where it is said in the Gospel: Jesus took the arton, it stands for bread, not specifying a particular bread. . . . (The Disputatio of the Latins and the Greeks, 1234 [trans. Jeff Brubaker; Translated Texts for Byzantinists 12; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2022], 184-86)

 

Melvin J. Ballard (December 31, 1934) on the 1886 Revelation of John Taylor and the 1890 Manifesto of Wilford Woodruff

  

And if the Lord had wanted plural marriage to continue according to the interpretation some give of President Taylor’s revelation, he would have allowed President Taylor to have lived and enforced it but He took him and raised up President Wilford Woodruff who was inspired to give the Manifesto that stopped the practice of plural marriage. This indicates that the Lord’s approval is with the course of the Church. (Melvin J. Ballard, Letter to Eslie D. Jenson, December 31, 1934, repr. The Star of Truth 3, no. 7 [July 1955]: 227)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

B. H. Roberts Foundation/Mormonr, John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation (cf. Primary Sources)

Melvin J. Ballard (August 14, 1934) Addressing Whether Jesus was a Polygamist

  

The Church has not taken the position that Jesus Christ has plural wives. It is true that one of the early elders of the Church so advocated it but the Church itself has never made any such statement. (Melvin J. Ballard, Letter to Eslie D. Jenson, August 14, 1934, repr. The Star of Truth 3, no. 7 [July 1955]: 216)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

B. H. Roberts Foundation/Mormonr, Latter-day Saints and Polygamy (cf. Primary Sources)

Douglas J. Moo on New Testament-Era Attitudes Towards the Institution of Slavery

  

Third, the New Testament Christians were a tiny religious group living within an all-powerful, authoritarian empire. They lacked the power to influence governmental policy. More important, they lacked the categories (simply assumed by those of us who live in liberal democracies) within which they could conceive of what we could call “social action.”

 

Finally, fourth—and most important, perhaps—the early Christians did not understand their calling in these terms. They rejoiced in their identity as the people of the new realm inaugurated by God through Christ. But they also knew quite well that the “old realm” continued to exist and that it would exist until Christ returned in glory. Granted, this realism about the continuing existence of the “world that is,” with its many social injustices, the New Testament Christians focused on the creation of an alternative society, a realm in which, whatever the realities around them, kingdom values would be lived out. Slavery, for instance, was not going to be abolished anytime soon; it was a reality that the early Christians lived with. Their focus then, was on encouraging Christians lived with. Their focus, then, was on encouraging Christians to realize, in their relationships with each other, that their “new realm” existence was what ultimately mattered and that this existence must dictate the way they would relate to one another. The realities of one’s social or cultural identity could not usually be changed. What mattered was that these earthly realities were seen to be trivial in comparison with eternal spiritual realities (see esp. 1 Cor 7:17-24). The letter to Philemon certainly shares this overall perspective. Paul seeks to reconfigure the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus in terms of their shared faith and the “fellowship” that faith creates (v. 6). Whether this new relationship would transform Onesimus’s existing worldly relationship to Philemon was not the most important thing. As M. Thompson puts it, “If a Christian owned a slave, the highest duty in which that master could be called was not to set the other free but to love the slave with the self-giving love of Christ.” Certainly this is the perspective found in the New Testament “household codes,” which do not call on Christian masters to liberate their slaves but to treat them fairly and justly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1; 1 Tim 6:2). (Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and Philemon [2d ed.; The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024], 363-64)

 

 

Richard Brunson on D&C 133:26

The late Richard Packham, in his “Joseph Smith As A Prophet” offered the following criticism of D&C 133:26:

 

ICE SHALL FLOW: Nov 3, 1831. D&C 133:26. Those "who are in the north countries... shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence."

 

FULFILLED?: The church has made no claim that this prophecy has been fulfilled. Besides, what does it mean?

 

Here is one potential explanation of this verse:

 

ANOTHER SPHERE

 

If the Lord did indeed remove the ten tribes from the earth, it certainly would not have been the first time that He performed such an act. Earlier the Lord did this with Enoch’s city (see Moses 7:69) and again with Melchizedek’s city of Salem (see Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 14:32-34 [in the Bible appendix]). It is also possible that the Lord may have done this at other times as well.

 

In each of these cases, the Lord took an entire civilization, with their land, and relocated them to another part of our galaxy. The Lord is said to be the same yesterday today and forever, and if He has done this in the past, He certainly could have repeated this process again for the lost ten tribes. After all, what better way of keeping the ten tribes hidden than by removing them from the earth?

 

Something else worth mentioning is that if these ten tribes were indeed taken from this earth, John the Revelator would still be able to minister unto them because John is translated being, and as Joseph Smith said about translated beings, “Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters [the Lord] held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets.” This would allow John to minister unto the lost ten tribes, even if they are not currently on this earth.

 

. . .

 

If the lost ten tribes were indeed taken with a piece of this earth and relocated somewhere in our galaxy, who then would they then return in the latter days? As it turns out, this question may be answered by the description of their return, as recorded in section 133 of the Doctrine and Covenants. If we examine this section with this new information, we find the following.

 

We first read that “they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord” (Doctrine and Covenants 133:26). If the ten tribes returned from another sphere or planet, they would logically return to the same place from whence they disappeared, which would be somewhere in the north, near the Arctic Ocean. From here, these Israelites in the “north countries” would begin their journey toward Zion. (Richard Brunson, Before the Second Coming [2d ed.; Springville, Utah: CFI, 2025], 113-14, 115, Kindle edition)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Genesis 3:15 in the Targums

  

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

 

15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between the offspring of your children and the offspring of her children. And when the children of the woman keep the commandments of the Law, they will take aim and strike you on your head. But when they forsake the commandments of the Law you will take aim and wound them on their heels. For them, however, there will be a remedy; but for you there will be no remedy; and they are to make peace in the end, in the days of the King Messiah.”

 

 

Targum Neofiti:

 

15. And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your sons and her sons. And it will come about that when her sons observe the Law and do the commandments they will aim at you and smite you on your head and kill you. But when they forsake the commandments of the Law you will aim and bite him on his heel and make him ill. For her sons, however, there will be a remedy, but for you, O serpent, there will not be a remedy, since they are to make appeasement in the end, in the day of King Messiah.”

 

 

Targum Onqelos:

 

15. And I will place enmity between you and (between) the woman, and between your children and (between) her children, it will remember what you did to it in ancient time and you will sustain (your hatred) for it to the end {of time}.”

 

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on Genesis 3:15 and Romans 16:20

 Gen 3:15:

 

he shall: The Hebrew would be read individually (“he shall” or collectively (“they shall”). The earliest known Jewish interpretation of this (Gk. autos, “he” in the Greek LXX). (The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, ed. Scott Hahn and Curtis J. Mitch [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024], 63)

 

 

Rom 16:20:

 

crush Satan under your feet: Paul desires the Roman Christians to understand the true difference between “good” and “evil” (16:19) and so share in Christ’s victory over the devil (! Jn 1:8). Paul is alluding to the first biblical prophecy, Gen 3:15, which promises that a Redeemer will trample the satanic serpent underfoot. Paul extends the prophecy about the Messiah to the entire messianic people. (The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, ed. Scott Hahn and Curtis J. Mitch [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2024], 2018)

 

Blog Archive