The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Jesus and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)

Jesus and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur)

Late Preface: I actually meant to post this several days ago, as part of my ongoing investigation to the idea of korban on the other thread (see below), but I wanted to polish it a bit. But since Aaron37 posted something concerning the Day of Atonement, I decided to go ahead and post it hoping for some insightful discussion of the matter, not only in the case of Aaron37’s assertion, but also in the atonement as it relates to Christ in general.

As I was investigative the concept of korban in relation to Jesus on this thread, something came to my attention concerning the redemptive aspect of Christ that has been brought up to me before, but didn’t contemplate deeply until now. Jesus died during the Passover (celebrated in the Spring), which institutes Christ as the Lamb of God reminiscent of Israel’s freedom from Egyptian bondage as they killed the lamb and spread the blood upon the doorposts to prevent all first-born males from dying. And that freedom correlates with our freedom with the bondage of sin. But the Day of Atonement is the day in which the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies for himself and the sins of the people and this only once per year in the Fall.

Most Christians would just probably just ask, what’s the difference? In the first place, the Passover wasn’t meant to atone for sins. Its function was to hammer down the last nail in Pharaoh’s stubbornness in freeing the Jews. And it was kept as a memorial (Exodus 12:.14), not as some ritual designed to have vicarious properties intrinsic to the Levitical Law. Which leads to the question as to just what did Jesus accomplish on the Cross if the Passover is only an ordinance of remembrance of an event which occurred long before in Israel’s history?

In the second place, even if could relate the Passover with the Day of Atonement, we introduce new problems. For one, Jesus isn’t from the tribe of Levi, as the Hebraist points out, for He descended from Judah. Thus He couldn’t be made a High Priest according to the Law. And then we have the problem of the ban against human sacrifice (Deut. 18:10).
Moreover, even if we grant that Jesus is the High Priest, the blood can only be poured out in the Holy of Holies on the Mercy Seat, not on a hill on the outskirts of the city.

Such are objections from our Jewish friends, propagated on some anti-missionary websites like Jews for Judaism and Messiah Truth Project. But I believe that some of the things they object to are legitimate concerns.

So what is the solution to this apparent discrepancy?

Thanks for starting this, Dondi.

I don’t have time for a lot of comments yet, but here’s some scripture to consider. The context is dealing with sin in the church.

1Cr 5:7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.
1Cr 5:8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Another note: Coming out of Egypt is coming out of captivity and slavery. Jesus sets the captives free.



I can agree that the Passover, as it relates to Christ, might have some efficacious effect on our freedom from the power of sin (and indicated such in this statement from my original post, “And that freedom correlates with our freedom with the bondage of sin.”) Yes, we can relate that through Christ, through the Blood and being led by the Spirit, we can be delivered from sin’s influence. But that in of itself (that is the Passover as taught in Jewish circles) does not irradicate sin. That is what the Atonement is for. For then why would there be need for two feasts at different times and different methods of celebration.

I’m convinced that what happened with Israel from the Exodus, through the wilderness and the institution of the Tabernacle with all its various functions, and onward through to the Promised Land has a direct correspondance with the re-birth and life of a Christian. Hebrews explicitly states:

"Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. " - Hebrews 8:1-5.

Israel is our pattern for the Christian experience (not in the disobedience they find themselves often, but in the covenant with God, who has adopted them as His child). Therefore, we ought to see a direct corresponding pattern when it comes to Christ in the Feasts, observance, and rituals, in the proper order, and it is in this regard that I agree with Aaron37 (shocker!). And it is from this premise (the heavenly pattern) that our investigation into the matter must flow.

I’m having a hard time figuring out exactly what you’re trying to communicate–which is probably due to being rather tired–so can you clarify a couple of things?

When you say, “Israel is our pattern for the Christian experience,” do you mean that the story of Israel is a pattern in the individual’s life? And, if so, would you like to elaborate on how you see that playing out?

What do you percieve to be the primary significance of the Passover? Do I understand you correctly that you do not believe that Christ is a “sin offering”?


Briefly :wink: ,

  1. The Passover, after a series of other plagues, was instrumental in freeing the Israelites from slavery and bondage from Egypt. This represents the Christians freedom from the bondage of sin. We become a new creature, even though the old man is still present. But it is the new man ***in Christ ***that gives us the power to overcome sin.

  2. Passing through the Red Sea, where Egyptian army pursues Israel but drowns, represents baptism, where the Holy Spirit washes us clean from the old life and resurrects us to to newness of life (see Romans 6:1-4, I Cor. 10:1-2, I should also mention being led by the cloud and pillar of fire is the leading of the Holy Spirit through the salvation process, the Spirit did not yet occupy in the Tabernacle until later, which we’ll get to). The old things (Egyptian life represented by the Egyptian army drwoning) is passed away, all things become new. We are cleansed to begin the new life. We are not to look back as some Isrealites looking to go back and eat onions and garlic by the Nile. Our life is now in Him.

  3. Once in the wilderness, they become people of God, God’s children as a nation. When Moses first spoke to Pharoah, he proclaimed the words of the Lord: “Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.” In other words, the Mosiac Covenat would not be realized until they enter the desert. We are in the wilderness period as we speak. (BTW, the whole thing with Pharoah resisting and refusing to let God’s people go represents our resistance to the Holy Spirit to get saved, at least in the initial stages.

  4. The manna from heaven is our daily bread, that is the word of God (see John 6). It was to be eaten daily lest it spoil. We ought to live daily by the Word and eat the words of life daily lest it become stale in our hearts.

  5. The water from the Rock represents the Spirit from which we drink the living waters of life (see John 4). We speak to that rock to get the water, but not strike the Rock, which is what got Moses into trouble. The Spirit comes to us not by violent action, but like a gentle brook as God gives freely, lest we quench the Spirit. Speak to God for that Spirit. There is something about speaking that moves the Spirit (Genesis 1:2-3)

  6. Exodus 19, God establishes His covenant with Israel on Mount Sinai (which is a natural formation made by God, not like the man-made structure at Babel). Here God official separates His people from among the other nations, as a holy nation of a kingdom of priests (see I Peter 2:9-10, Rev. Rev 1:6). It is here that the cloud of smoke descends down the mountian with the fires of a furnace, reminiscent of the day of Pentacost, where the early Christians gathered in the upper room (the mount?). Notice here that the people cannot come up the mount, only the priests. There is a reason for this, which is established later in the Tabernacle rituals.

  7. The Ten Commandments, part of the covenant designed to establish the kingdom of heaven, that fair-righteousness that Jason speaks of often. Establishes rules for this nation of royal priests. But these rules do not save. They cannot save, because they do not eradicate sin. The commandments are tacked on the doorposts of the house and on the frontlet of one’s children’s eyes (Deut. 6:6-8), but it is yet not in tablet of the heart until the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-34). Which I do not believe even today that it won’t be fully realized until we come into His kingdom.

  8. In the same chapter in Exodus when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, He tells Moses: “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” . This will of course show up as the Tabernacle, a meeting place for God’s people to worship Him, the precursor of the Church, where our sacrifices are given to God and atonement is made for sins, culminating with the Day of Atonement as described in Lev. 16. Throughout the wilderness period, this is the center of the camp, where the pillars of cloud and fire continually leading the people around and the Shekinah glory of God is present. In this Temple, there are varying degrees of access, depending on your status before God, in which the High Priest alone has access to the Holy of Holies and the Mercy Seat, and that only once a year. We have access to the throne (Mercy Seat) only through Christ while we are here on earth to find grace in the time of need (Hebrews 4:16). Such is the case in our wilderness period.

  9. We are not in the Promised Land yet. God promised the Israelites that they will return to the land of their fathers as promised to Abraham. However, the first generation sinned because they did not believe God to deliver them from the giants in the Land, save Joshua and Caleb out of the twelve spies. Therefore, that generation wandered the desert until it died off. Buit at the end of that 40 year period, Joshua (Jesus in the Greek :wink: ) led the next generation into the promised land after feirce battle with the enemies of the land (Rev 19:11-21).

  10. Then nation of Israel set up the kingdom in the land of present day Israel and established a king to rule over them (Rev. 20:4)

Not saying Jesus isn’t a sin offering at all, Hebrews 9 explicitely states that. However, I believe that the role of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is different than the Passover. The Passover frees us from bondage from the world and sin and sins total influence, the atonement eradicates the sin to bring us closer to God. And I believe that just as salvation for the Israelites was a process, our salvation is a process as well. There is a spiritual reason why there are two feasts, and that is what I’m trying to investigate. I’m still working it out. But as I have demonstrated these parallels of Israel’s experience to our experience as Christians, then I have to believe that there has to be a spiritual pattern for everything that has gone on in those times of Israel’s past.

A couple of brief (for me :wink: ) comments:

1.) The New Testament language tends to fuse together the sacrificial functions of Christ, in terms of both Passover and the Day of Atonement. Perhaps the most obvious example is John the Baptist declaring that Jesus is the Lamb of God Who is carrying away the sins of the world–Passover Lamb imagery combined with scapegoat imagery.

But naturally speaking, Jesus cannot be sacrificed twice historically. It has to be one time or the other. Jesus chooses Passover holiday for this; maybe because (unlike the Day of Atonement) this was one of the two Great Feast weeks in Judaism. (The other being the Feast of Tabernacles, which includes the Feast of Water and Light. And there is a good argument, including from scriptural hints, that Jesus was born on the first day of that feast–though conceived on or around Dec 25, 40 weeks prior. So that Feast would have been already ‘covered’ in the life of Christ.)

2.) It’s kind of interesting that while the Hebraist talks (somewhat obliquely) about the Day of Atonement, none of the Gospels seem to zero in on it–not even GosJohn, where it might have been expected. (Heck, even the Feast of Dedications gets a mention in GosJohn!–we know it as Hanukkah.) I take this to mean that for Christians the motifs of the two feasts are combined in the sacrifice of Christ at Passover.

3.) In GosJohn 6, it isn’t the ‘words’ of God (i.e. scripture) that is being pointed to as having been foreshadowed by the manna (although that’s admittedly a popular rabbinic theme.) It’s Christ Himself; up to and including eating Him every day (whatever that figure of speech might mean. Catholics aren’t pulling their devotional application of it out of nowhere. :wink: ) While He goes on to say in the epilogue to that scene that the words He has spoken to them are spirit and are life, his actual ongoing application of the manna imagery throughout that scene is to Himself personally: He doesn’t only give the true bread, He is the true bread. (Just as He doesn’t only give words of spirit and life, He is the resurrection and the life; the way, the truth and the life; and it is in Himself that the life which is the light of men continually comes into existence as an eternally active fact–a light that once again is also somehow Christ Himself in some essential way.)

This puzzled me, too, upon first reading it, but just now I realized something. And forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but here goes:

I’ve heard the Egyptians being equated as a symbol of the world, and slavery as sin. But, we ask, how can slavery properly symbolize sin when we choose to walk away from-- oh, that’s right! We don’t. :mrgreen: At, least it doesn’t happen of our own volition. God gives us the means to escape our nasty relationship of slavery to this world and its principles! Through his shed blood. So that’s covered.

But what about the Day of Atonement? Well, we see in Leviticus 16 that this was established not to prevent wrath from coming, or to help anyone escape, but to allow Aaron to enter the Most Holy Place, or the Holiest of Holies. There were several sacrifices, including the mysterious scapegoat symbology.

The Hebraist, as Jason pointed out, mentions Day of Atonement concepts (maybe this would be useful in Aaron’s thread as well). But the book of Hebrews is not primarily about escaping sin but about entering God’s presence. The two are tied into one, to be sure, as with the whole concept behind Jesus’ death ripping the temple veil, but perhaps the Day of Atonement symbolizes an even further immersion into that presence.

What say you guys?

But I will point out that while the veil in the Temple ripped on the day of His crucifixion, Jesus didn’t yet ascend to the Father until after three days (or more if you count 50 days or so after Passover to just prior to Pentacost), so He tells Mary in John 20:17. So there seems to be a gap between when the blood was actually spilt and when He presented Himself before the presence of the Father, suggesting that the application of the Blood in the heavenly Holy of Holies is not simultaneous.

But I would counter that Jesus IS the Word of God. It isn’t the physical expression of actually eating Jesus, but that bread is analogous to the words Jesus spoke, for He said, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” - John 6:63

I had a conversation some time ago with a Catholic friend in another forum, incidently, on this very subject, and I would like to repost part of my answer here, if you don’t mind.

"I’m not suggesting that the death, burial, and resurrection are not important in the physical evidence confirming coming Resurrection. Nor do I have any issues of the Word becoming flesh as evidence of Jesus’ divinity. But if you are going to be consistent, be consistent in your context, T______[friend’s name intentionally left blank]. If ‘flesh’ in 6:63 means man’s carnal nature, then it ought to be interpreted this way throughout the passage, as in 6:56. Which would then read thus: ‘For my (carnal nature) is meat indeed…’. And I know you don’t believe that is what’s meant. The problem is that you are taking the whole passage too literally (except of course in 6:63). When you do that, you miss the point. I’ll show you what I mean.

For example, back a couple of chapters in John 4:33, the disciples asked Jesus, ‘Hath any man brought him ought to eat?’ and Jesus replied, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” It is obvious that Jesus isn’t talking about real food, is He?

Now observe our text in John 6:27-29:

“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”

Again, Jesus is not speaking of a literal physical food. How do we know that? Because of the disciple’s reply, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” The disciples reply echos the understanding of what Jesus said two chapters back, the work of God. And that work of God is to believe on Him whom God sent. It speaks nothing of the the Eucharest.

So in going back to 6:56, “For my flesh is meat indeed…” we now know that ‘meat’ means doing the will of God…via the Word of God.

Jesus in His temptation said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” - Matthew 4:4

Where is it written? In Deuteronomy 8:3:

“And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”

And isn’t it interesting that manna is precisely the topic in John 6. Any Jew with knowledge of the Torah would connect what Jesus said in John 6:31-33 with Deut. 8:3."

This is the point I was trying to explore in this thread, which I referenced in the OP. There were different types of sacrifices than the one’s dealing with sin. For example, peace offerings were voluntary and, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, there were three kinds:

The point is that there is something very deep going on in the Tabernacle that transcends mere sacrifice for sins, it involved a real, and collective, relationship with God under the covenant. Something God has promised to restore.

Granted!–but still doesn’t apply to Yom Kippur in a directly distinctive fashion. (It isn’t like Jesus ascends to the Father on the Day of Atonement, for example–which is what one might have expected from reading the Hebraist, by the way. That’s a holiday somewhat before Tabernacle Week, significantly later in the year than Pentecost.)

Granted!–but that doesn’t exactly mitigate my point. :wink: The bread isn’t analogous in Jesus’ discourse to the words He spoke, but to He Himself. Just as Jesus doesn’t only give words from God, He is the Word of God.

Incidentally, the title Word of God isn’t claimed or given to Jesus there in that scene; but Jesus claims to be the Bread of Life, the food we must eat and drink in order to have eternal life. Reducing this to meaning only his declarations runs against the thrust of the passage. Also, it wasn’t the disciples who asked Jesus the question at 6:28, but a group of disaffected proto-zealots who had wanted to crown Jesus as a military messiah the day before, who have tracked Him to Capernaum after He gave them the slip overnight. There’s an interesting universalistic rebuke behind Jesus’ statements here, once the narrative contexts are added up!

The comments section of this particular entry at the Christian Cadre (I didn’t write the article, btw) are largely devoted to a very pleasant conversation between a thoughtful Roman Catholic (and anti-universalistic) visitor and myself on the narrative and thematic contexts of the flesh-munching scene of John 6. I highly recommend it. (Actually, I’ve been meaning to compile it into an article for our forum for some time, and haven’t gotten around to doing so.) I’m not a proponent of the RCC application of the doctrine of transsubstantiation, and I don’t use John 6 to appeal to the doctrine even though I’m generally in favor of some doctrine of transsubstantiation.

All this talk is making me so hungry and thirsty for Him… maybe we can start up a thread just focusing on His attributes as described in scripture with detailed exegesis like we have here. I have to say that’d be nothing short of amazing. :smiley:

Lutheran’s don’t use John 6 as an appeal either. Dondi…‘the flesh profiteth nothing…’ but the bread and wine do if He says they do!

I’ve been working on the idea (as a universalist) of sustenance - plain and simple. With faith or not. “Ah, I am in You (and You in me) and You sustained me.” If the ultimate confession of Christ by all is to be uniform and pleasing to God (of one mind) then so is the actual experience on which to base it - understood in this life or not by individuals or His churcheS - he’s in every bite and every sip we take. The Eucharist pays tribute to that life-giving fountain in a real way. i.e. Sustenance, itself, has been elevated beyond the mundane.

Luther: “To the hypocrite, the sacrament is poison.” Dear buddy, who does that leave out?

One must always ask: What is the Redeemer of the World teaching the World? Think Big.

I’m looking forward to your article, Jason - this is a topic that is dear to me. It’s a topic that would be fun to flesh it out - if you can appreciate the pun.

This makes sense to me, although the (RCC) Eucharist does not. But I’ve been looking for some kind of moderate theory on the subject since I tend to be a strong believer in the concrete nature of our God. In fact, I believe that the spirit is made up of what physicists call energy, although it goes into much higher dimensions than even we can measure or fathom.

Like nails, blood, water, bread, wine, animals, people! Created stuff! You’d make such a crappy gnostic - but that is what most people are drawn to - it’s so ‘spiritual’ to hate the what is. That is not something the physically resurrected Lord of the universe ever taught. “Love life” That is, love every minutia of it - the very foundation of science. Under what principal and command could man ever be expected to 'subdue the earth"? logic? Or the source of logic?

One can count - but who can account for their counting?


I hate how gnosticism has tainted our faith with a passion. Makes it so much more unrealistic and vulnerable to real criticism.


I understand better what you’re trying to explore now (sorry for the previous incoherent post). Your question is about why there should be both Passover and Atonement, and what’s the difference, right?

I think my view is similar to what you have already expressed.

Here’s how I see it right now: Passover is the finished work of Christ on the cross–the captives have been released from Egypt, but that’s not the end of the journey. Paul tells us:

Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Phl 3:20-21 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

This part of ‘redemption,’ which is still coming is what I see as figured by Atonement Day.

Jubilee also falls on Yom Kippur, and it it the freeing of all captives and forgiveness of all debts:
“And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.”

I don’t think I’d go with the exact correlations that you listed. If these things are shadows and figures, that’s not the same as an exact road map. I could be wrong. But, Paul, (in the passage I quoted above) puts us in the Feast of Unleavened bread–which is connected to Passover, but before Pentecost–see what I mean?

But at the same time, I think there are many layers of meaning in these things. So, on one hand your ‘timeline’ idea may be valid, and at the same time the illustrations also be available for teaching purposes.


Yep! Now why didn’t A’s attempt at typologically reading the feasts include reference to Jubilee? Hmm…

(Hint: when universalists appeal to the Feasts typologically, we always include the Jubilee precepts. :smiley: )

True. Still, it allows some leeway for a time-gap. I am aware that Yom Kippur occurs in the fall, Sep-Oct time frame, I believe. The only hint the Hebriast makes of this is in Hebrews 9:7.

But the reason I making a big issue out of this is because God of the Old Testament is meticulous in detail. Why would God go through so much trouble and detail in establishing the ritual sacrifice through large chunks of the Torah, i.e. dimensions of the Tabernacle, the types of sacrifices, the types of animals used in those sacrifices, the preparation of sacrifices, the preparation of the priests in ritual cleansings, in the garments they wear, and the sequence in which they perform the rituals, the precision of timing in celebration of the various feast and observances, and yet when we get to the New Testament, everything gets conglomerated in one sacrifice in Christ on a simple Cross on the outskirts of the city, where sacrifices weren’t even originally performed? Everything else just gets shoved in a corner and forgotten? That makes no sense to me, particularly since the Ezekiel Temple, presumable a future Temple, maybe even the Millenial Temple, goes back to being just as meticulous as the Tabernacle in the Torah. I just get the feeling something is missing here.

If Jesus said that He came not to abolish the Law (something He created in the first place), but to fulfill it, then it stands to reason that He would fullfill it consistent in the manner from which it was written. And that is the extent on my investigation. (And I will tell you now that I have formulated some ideas about some possibilities, only possibilities, mind you, but do not wish to reveal them yet until further study. Not that I expect to claim to have some ‘revelation’ from on high, but you know what I mean).

But in saying Jesus is the Word of God doesn’t mean merely reducing that word to the discourses of His lessons he taught in the Gospels. Jesus was the Word from the beginning of time, and that includes all of scripture. And I’m not even reducing this just the words written down in the Bible, it goes deeper than that. John acknowledges that there are many things that Jesus said that he estimated could not be contained in all the books of the world. We only have a snapshot.

Insofar as the proto-zealot angle, though I grant that it’s possible, the text doesn’t explictly tell us that it was *this *group that chartered a boat to find Jesus. The only thing it indicates is a group of people whom Jesus said didn’t come to Him because of the miracle, but because they were fed. But as far as the universalist message, assuming you are talking about vs. 37-45, I agree.

Interesting article comments. I rather surprise that you favor some form of transubstantiation. Similiar to what the EO seems to hold, which I’m not necessarily against, for I believe that where two or three are gathered together Christ’s name, He is in the midst of them. I still have reservations about the transformative elements actually being Christ, though, particularly in any redemptive properties it might have. In the first place, the Passover is a rememberance, and therefore the scope of a memorial is to look back at an event that has taken place in the past, in this case Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Since Christ incorprated the Passover into the Last Supper, by inheritance it too is a memorial. “This do in rememberance of Me”. Even in Paul’s condemnation in I Cor. 11, he refrains the same sentiment from Luke’s Gospel. Then he goes on to say, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” Which begs the question, just how often? Every day, every week, every month, every quarter, every year? It is an open-ended question. In the second place, if the Eucharest were so o’ mightily important in the salvation process, then it ought to be repeated and stressed in practically every NT book. Even in our current focus of John’s Gospel, we do not see the Lord’s Supper actually presented as in the Synoptics. Evidently, John didn’t deem the Eucharest all that important part of his account.

The highlighted portion precisely reflects that very angle I’m working on in my study.