What does the leaven represent, which must be cast out?

[CMike]

Its important for helping to clarify where Jesus ultimately disagreed with the Pharisees. He was not calling them proud but blind. Jesus believed in private revelation of himself rather than a public revelation and suffering along with it. Pharisees rejected his concept of having both tribulation and restoration at the same time. That is likely why he referred to their teachings as leavened bread, and it is likely why they called him demon possessed (crazy). They rejected his suffering, his 'Take up your cross' message, his 'This is the kingdom, stupid' message. They would have thought he was crazy as would most people today by-the-way. They would have said 'No this isn't the kingdom!' and 'No I'm not going to accept your version of a suffering Jubilee!'

Spot on.

The jews at that time as today would think he is nuts.

G-D made it clearly in numerous passages in the Tanach that it's only G-D's kingdom, and to trust only him. That he alone is our savior.

To tell you the truth I can believe any people at the time bought it. I find it hard to believe that people today would buy it.

Why would they worship a person who claimed he was a divine being?

It's mind boggeling.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its complicated isn't it. The history of it is even more complex and undecided, but one thing about it is that it all started as an effort to do good and to make a positive difference. People were looking for ways to defy the corruption of Rome an empire that preached oppression. Also the Jewish temple was first corrupted and then destroyed around this time period, just one of the threats which created many different independent movements all looking to preserve the Jewish cultural and religious heritage. (Some of these movements left fragments in caves which have now been found.) The times were traumatic and filled with revolution and uncertainty.

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,
Let us take another example. Will the "elders", who the "executioners" of the city of Jerusalem (Ez 9:6), think that they are being afflicted when the "Word" of God (Scripture), says they they will be the first to be struck down?

They probably would be. But then the parallel "leavened bread" would end up meaning G-d's non-afflicting Word, rather than your "traditions of men" garbage.

And what happens to Deut 8:3? Unleavened bread is still bread, yet the verse makes a discrepancy between bread and G-d's Word, the opposite of what you are doing here.

The Saduccees, like the Catholics, all have their selling points. The problem is that when one has doctrines and traditions, that have little or no basis in Truth, then you are relegated to having the traditions of men. Either the Saducees are right, and the Pharisees are wrong, or they both cling to the traditions of men, irrespective of their claims.

It doesn't make any difference if the Saducees claim they have no tradition, they in fact have traditions which vary from that of the traditions of the Pharisees. The Catholics can falsely claim a foundation based on the "Word"of God, and the Sadducees can claim their infallibility also, but it all comes down to having a foundation based on the tradition of men.

It is not until "I turn My hand against you, and will smelt away your dross", that that "I will restore the judges as at first". (Is 1:26) The judges "as at first", will be as with initially, have the annointing of the Spirit of God, and will make righteous judgments. That presumes that at the time of Isaiah, and yet today, the judges were making unrighteous judgments.

Is 1:26,"Then I will restore your judges as at thje first, and your counselors as at the beginning."

The tradition of the Saducees is to only read Scriptures with nothing else. By that yardstick, your traditions are of men than theirs are.

 

[2ndpillar]

They probably would be. But then the parallel "leavened bread" would end up meaning G-d's non-afflicting Word, rather than your "traditions of men" garbage.

And what happens to Deut 8:3? Unleavened bread is still bread, yet the verse makes a discrepancy between bread and G-d's Word, the opposite of what you are doing here.


The tradition of the Saducees is to only read Scriptures with nothing else. By that yardstick, your traditions are of men than theirs are.

Tumah,
With respect to my "tradition of men garbage", the reason the "wisdom of their wise men shall perish", is because of the "tradition learned by rote".(Is 29:13-14).

Daniel 9:3-22 teaches that to receive insight, one must confess, fast, keep the commandments, listen to the prophets, and confess as a whole of Israel, and repentance. Otherwise the curses and calamity will continue to occur (Daniel 9:11). Living in the U.S. will provide no sanctuary, for the U.S. has now been overcome with the perversions which plagued Jerusalem in Ez 9:9.

"The imagery between the "bread", and the Word of God, in my reference is detailed in Dt 8:3.

Dt 8:3,""He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

Isaiah 6:9, "Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand" ....The holy seed is its stump" The holy seed does not include the traditions of men.

Is 29:13-14,"Then the Lord said, Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.”

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,
With respect to my "tradition of men garbage", the reason the "wisdom of their wise men shall perish", is because of the "tradition learned by rote".(Is 29:13-14).

Sorry, but the verse doesn't say "tradition learned by rote." It says "מצות אנשים מלמדה" which means "a commandment of men that is taught." It's a phrase that means it is done by rote. In other words (and this makes more sense in context of the verse than what you are suggesting), the complaint is that G-d's Command to fear Him has become a matter of performing the requirements by rote. It has nothing to do with traditions.

Daniel 9:3-22 teaches that to receive insight, one must confess, fast, keep the commandments, listen to the prophets, and confess as a whole of Israel, and repentance. Otherwise the curses and calamity will continue to occur (Daniel 9:11). Living in the U.S. will provide no sanctuary, for the U.S. has now been overcome with the perversions which plagued Jerusalem in Ez 9:9.

Ok...?

"The imagery between the "bread", and the Word of God, in my reference is detailed in Dt 8:3.

Dt 8:3,""He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

Yes, but you aren't referring to bread in general, but unleavened bread. The verse here makes no such distinction.

Isaiah 6:9, "Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand" ....The holy seed is its stump" The holy seed does not include the traditions of men.

Is 29:13-14,"Then the Lord said, Because this people draw near with their words And honor Me with their lip service,
But they remove their hearts far from Me,
And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote,
Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous;
And the wisdom of their wise men will perish,
And the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.”

Says you.

 

[2ndpillar]

Sorry, but the verse doesn't say "tradition learned by rote." It says "מצות אנשים מלמדה" which means "a commandment of men that is taught." It's a phrase that means it is done by rote. In other words (and this makes more sense in context of the verse than what you are suggesting), the complaint is that G-d's Command to fear Him has become a matter of performing the requirements by rote. It has nothing to do with traditions.

Ok...?

Yes, but you aren't referring to bread in general, but unleavened bread. The verse here makes no such distinction.

Says you.

Tumah,
Actually I copied the verse word for word. Your version seems to be one of your own definement. Giving your version, what is the difference between the "commandments of men that is taught" and the "traditions learned by rote", with respect to the verse? As per rote, it does not mean "performing" God's commandments, but in repeatedly vocalizing them to memory. It is a method of learning which is now not recommended in Yeshiva Universities, and schools in general, and for good reason.

rote definition: Rote learning is a memorization technique based on repetition. The idea is that one will be able to quickly recall the meaning of the material the more one repeats it. Some of the alternatives to rote learning include meaningful learning, associative learning, and active learning.

As for the verse cited, with respect to the "Word of God" being what man should live by, it was with respect to manna, which does not require leaven, or time for leaven to rise. It would be more like flat oil cakes after processsing and baking. One is to eat the bread of "life" without "leaven", which stands for the hypocritically applied traditions of men.

Dt 8:3,""He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

 

[Tumah]

Tumah,
Actually I copied the verse word for word. Your version seems to be one of your own definement. Giving your version, what is the difference between the "commandments of men that is taught" and the "traditions learned by rote", with respect to the verse? As per rote, it does not mean "performing" God's commandments, but in repeatedly vocalizing them to memory. It is a method of learning which is now not recommended in Yeshiva Universities, and schools in general, and for good reason.

rote definition: Rote learning is a memorization technique based on repetition. The idea is that one will be able to quickly recall the meaning of the material the more one repeats it. Some of the alternatives to rote learning include meaningful learning, associative learning, and active learning.

Maybe, but where you copied it from, did not give you a translation that accurately reflected the meaning of the words.

The verse is saying that the commandment to fear G-d, has become one whose ACTIONS are done BY ROTE. As the beginning of the verse says, "this nation draws near - with their mouths and with their lips, they honor me, but his (ie the nation's) heart is far from Me." This means that their service that is done in fear of G-d (Deut. 10:12), is really only lip-service, with no conviction behind it.

The commandment [to fear G-d is being performed] by men [who do thing] of rote.

That is the meaning of the verse.

As for the verse cited, with respect to the "Word of God" being what man should live by, it was with respect to manna, which does not require leaven, or time for leaven to rise. It would be more like flat oil cakes after processsing and baking. One is to eat the bread of "life" without "leaven", which stands for the hypocritically applied traditions of men.

Dt 8:3,""He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

The manna was miraculous in nature. It makes as much sense to say that it didn't have leaven as to say it didn't have flour.

 

[Muffled]

Just what we need; more drivel from the shallow cesspool of replacement theology.

I believe your response reflects more of your own personal opinion than a reflection of what was said.

I believe I did not detect any drivel.

I don't believe I saw any replacement theology but it certainly makes sense to displace the words of men that have become tares beside the wheat of the Word of God. I suppose Leaven is more active in altering the consistency of the bread so it is even more dangerous.

Do you know why the bread had to be unleavened?

 

[Muffled]

It was Jesus whom was filled with hypocrisy and arrogance.

He was in no position to lecture anyone.

I believe it is a bit audacious of you to tell God what He can do and not do.

 

[Muffled]

This is utterly rediculous and shows no understanding of Judaism.

Jews ate unleavened bread because they had to get the hell out of Egypt before Pharaoh changed his mind again.

G-D told them not to wait for the bread to rise.

We are commanded not to eat leavened bread during the Passover time as a rememberance of what the jews did in Passover.

Exodus

Chapter 12

Exodus - Chapter 12 (Parshah Bo) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

14. And this day shall be for you as a memorial, and you shall celebrate it as a festival for the Lord; throughout your generations, you shall celebrate it as an everlasting statute.

15. For seven days you shall eat unleavened cakes, but on the preceding day you shall clear away all leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leaven from the first day until the seventh day that soul shall be cut off from Israel.

That argument sounds rational since it is my understanding that it can take a couple of days for bread to rise but I don't believe that was the primary reason.

 

[2ndpillar]

That argument sounds rational since it is my understanding that it can take a couple of days for bread to rise but I don't believe that was the primary reason.

Dear Muffled,
Actually I baked some leaven bread the day before yesterday, and the process under ideal conditions, took less than 4 hours. Although if I had been on the road, I would have not have been able to replicate the procedure, but I used leaven in a jar, and the Israelites probably used a starter. I would think the problem would be one of timing and the method of baking and not the leaven itself.

Bread - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There were multiple sources of leavening available for early bread. Airborne yeasts could be harnessed by leaving uncooked dough exposed to air for some time before cooking. Pliny the Elder reported that the Gauls and Iberians used the foam skimmed from beer to produce "a lighter kind of bread than other peoples." Parts of the ancient world that drank wine instead of beer used a paste composed of grape juice and flour that was allowed to begin fermenting, or wheat bran steeped in wine, as a source for yeast. The most common source of leavening was to retain a piece of dough from the previous day to use as a form of sourdough starter.[7]

The Israelis probably had wine and grape juice, so that could also be a good source of new leaven. The yeast grows on the skin of a grape.

The use of leaven was similar to that of the use of parables, in which is explained by Isaiah 6:10,"You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;" The feast days are lessons based on past events, put focused on the future of Israel, such as nations in the millenium, will keep the feast of booths. (Ze 14:18) The judges of Israel (traditions of men) will be replaced with a judge who judges not by what he sees or hears, but by righteousness. (Isaiah 11:4)

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wonder what was the overall effect on the production of bread when all of the leaven had to be gotten rid of yearly? Where did they get more leaven after the Passover feast was done? Did they let a piece of dough spoil or borrow leaven from somewhere else? Did they just do without leaven for a while? Did bread production pick right back up like nothing happened?

 

[jtartar]

Jesus was a Pharisee, as was Paul, and what we see going on in the gospels is essentially a "family" argument. Jesus' anger over outward shows of piety for popularity's sake is found in many locations in the Tanakh, but one certainly shouldn't somehow believe that all, or even most, Pharisees were involved in that. Instead, he seems to be going after maybe certain leaders who may have been abusing their power, or maybe just putting on a show by trying to impress others.

We also have to remember that the gospels were written long after it was obvious that the Way was becoming less and less welcome in synagogues and maybe even the Temple itself, so words of hostility towards the leaders shouldn't be of any surprise.

metis,
Paul was a Pharisee, but Jesus was not.
The fact is, Jesus cold not have been a Pharisee, because he was not rich or from a powerful family. Another fact that proves this is that the people wondered how Jesus came to know so much when Jesus had not attended their religious schools, John 7:15,16. The apostles, Jesus main followers were considered, by the religious leaders, to be ignorant and unlearned. This was because none of them had attended the rabbinic schools, Acts 4:13.

 

[Desert Snake]

Leaven means false teachings imo, Jesus was against the false teachings of the Pharissees. So in this context it would mean 'extra, superfluous, false'.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jews ate unleavened bread because they had to get the hell out of Egypt before Pharaoh changed his mind again.

Great, but that doesn't answer the OP question. I'm not aware of Jesus and his followers only eating unleavened bread, the verse seems most likely to be a metaphor.

 

[metis]

metis,
Paul was a Pharisee, but Jesus was not.
The fact is, Jesus cold not have been a Pharisee, because he was not rich or from a powerful family. Another fact that proves this is that the people wondered how Jesus came to know so much when Jesus had not attended their religious schools, John 7:15,16. The apostles, Jesus main followers were considered, by the religious leaders, to be ignorant and unlearned. This was because none of them had attended the rabbinic schools, Acts 4:13.

Actually both Jesus and Paul were indeed working from the Pharisee paradigm, although it's not possible to know whether Jesus considered himself to actually be a Pharisee. Jesus' basic teachings are Pharisee, especially liberal Pharisee, if you take them one at a time and compare them. Even the Wikipedia page on the Pharisees provides enough information to allow you to compare, and let me encourage you to look especially on what it says about the more liberal elements within that movement.

Secondly, most Pharisees were not rich nor powerful, so it seems that you may be confusing them with some of the Sadducees. The Pharisee movement especially appealed to a more grass-roots approach that was not reliant on Temple sacrifices. Jesus attending a synagogue and speaking there is just one piece of evidence that he was indeed a Pharisee.

The latter two sentences above appear to be correct based on our limited information.

 

[Desert Snake]

Different type of bread, but I dont think its translating well.


Could be literal & metaphor

 

[roger1440]

Different type of bread, but I dont think its translating well.


Could be literal & metaphor

I found great synonyms for "full of hot air" on the new Thesaurus.com!

 

[12jtartar]

Just what we need; more drivel from the shallow cesspool of replacement theology.

Why then did Jesus come to the earth?? Jesus told his listeners to repent and get saved from that wicked generation. There was only one WAY in the first century, there is only one WAY today, Ephesians 4:3-6. Any time you have divisions, one is not right, so there is no reason to have more that one religion, 1Corinthians 1:10. God only accepts truth, John 4:23,24, 2Thessalonians 2:7-14. The first century Christians followed The WAY, which was ONE way, no other way is acceptable to God, Acts 4:12,13. Only the followers of Jesus and the APostles received the free gift of the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:32. There is only one way today that is being blessed by God, Ephesians 4:3-6, 1Corinthians 1:10.

 

[Tumah]

Secondly, most Pharisees were not rich nor powerful, so it seems that you may be confusing them with some of the Sadducees

I've noticed that some Christians, or perhaps many, think that the Pharisees were a group of leaders, rather than a sect of Judaism with leaders and laymen like any other. I think that explains this type of statement.