What happens if, instead of repeating an explanation that has been given many times, we compare it with the text to which it refers? In the case of the story of the unleavened bread, it is precisely this question that has become important to me.<\/p>\n
The account of the Exodus links the story of the unleavened bread both to the prior provision and, later, to the explanation for the hasty departure. If we speak only of the latter, we omit a crucial part of the story. (Exodus 12:8; 15\u201320; 33\u201339, St Stephen\u2019s Society Bible<\/a>)<\/p>\n I do not wish to pass judgement on the faith of a religious community or the personal significance of its festival. I am examining one explanation: is it really sufficient to say that they ate unleavened bread because they did not have time to wait for the dough to rise?<\/p>\n Chapter 12 of the Book of Exodus describes the preparations prior to the account of the tenth plague: the lamb must be chosen on the tenth day of the month, kept until the fourteenth day, and then slaughtered. The story therefore does not describe a meal taken without prior preparation. (Exodus 12:3\u20136<\/a>)<\/p>\n It also specifies how the meal is to be eaten: \u201eIt is to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.\u201d The use of unleavened bread is already stipulated here; it is not the accidental result of a subsequent lack of time. (Ex 12:8<\/a>)<\/p>\n The provision also emphasises the need for readiness: they must eat with their belts fastened, wearing sandals and with a staff in their hands, and they must do so in a hurry. We cannot, therefore, claim that this was unexpected, as if there had been no indication whatsoever in the story to foreshadow their departure. (Exod 12:11<\/a>)<\/p>\n In the same passage, preceding the account of the plague, mention is made of the seven-day festival, the eating of unleavened bread and the removal of leaven from the houses. Even before the exodus begins, the narrative imbues these actions with ritual significance, which is later linked to the haste of the departure. (Exodus 12:14\u201320<\/a>)<\/p>\n Later in the chapter, the Egyptians urge the people on, and the people take with them the dough that has not yet been leavened. (Ex 12:33\u201334<\/a>) Verse 39 explains: \u201eThey did not put any leaven in it, for the Egyptians had driven them out; they could not delay, nor could they prepare any provisions for the journey.\u201d (Ex 12:39<\/a>)<\/p>\n This is where my question arises. If they had already been instructed to eat unleavened bread, how can the full explanation be that there was no time left for leaven when they set out?<\/p>\n The rule and the circumstances are not the same. One tells them what they must do; the other describes the situation in which they found themselves. I therefore consider the explanation based solely on haste to be incomplete:<\/strong> ignores the prior instruction. (Ex 12:8; 33\u201339<\/a>)<\/p>\n Being prepared does not preclude leaving in a hurry. My objection is not to the mention of haste, but to the fact that this is presented as the sole explanation rather than a prior arrangement. This in itself does not imply that the entire festival is false or that there is proof of deliberate deception, but it does highlight the need to examine the explanation. The issue has been discussed in various ways even within the tradition itself.<\/p>\n To me, Jesus\u2019s parable about leaven can also be read as a correction. In contrast to the leaven that is to be removed in the command to leave, a different meaning comes to the fore here: Jesus likens the Kingdom of Heaven itself to it. (Exodus 12:15\u201320<\/a>; Matthew 13:33<\/a>)<\/p>\n \u201eThe kingdom of heaven is like yeast which a woman took and mixed into three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.\u201d (Matthew 13:33<\/a>)<\/p>\n In this, I see the teaching that leaven cannot be interpreted merely as something to be discarded. The teaching we take on board can transform a person from within, just as leaven permeates the dough. For me, therefore, the question is not simply whether there is leaven, but what teachings we accept, nurture and pass on.<\/p>\n The festive tradition and the parable use the image of leaven in different contexts. I believe the correction lies in recognising not only the narrow interpretation of the symbol, but also its positive, life-shaping significance.<\/p>\n At the same time, Jesus warns: \u201eTake care; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!\u201d (Matthew 16:6<\/a>) As I see it, this distinction draws attention to the quality of teaching: what helps us to connect more clearly with God, and what leads us astray?<\/p>\n Paul interprets the image of the old leaven in terms of wickedness and evil, contrasting it with purity and righteousness. (1 Corinthians 5:6\u20138<\/a>) For me, this also calls for us to let go of those teachings that live on within us as misunderstandings. We do not need to reject every old teaching, but we must examine what we choose to preserve and pass on.<\/p>\n In my own spiritual interpretation, sourdough is also a symbol of continuity. Something of what we have absorbed in the past lives on in what we think today and pass on to others.<\/p>\n A thought or feeling can take root within us, and through our attention, care and experience, it can shape our lives. The change does not stop with us: it also affects the way we relate to others.<\/p>\n For me, sourdough serves as a reminder of our past and of our sense of belonging. It reminds us not to forget who we are, where we come from, and how we can reconnect with the ancient Source, with God and with one another.<\/p>\n Listening to one\u2019s heart and careful examination are not mutually exclusive in this regard. In my own view, the heart is the gateway to a connection with God; the realisation that comes from this may also prompt me to reread, review and reflect on what I previously took for granted.<\/p>\n I therefore interpret Jesus\u2019 teaching on leaven as a path to restoring a pure connection.<\/strong> For me, this reinterpreted symbol is about embracing the pure teaching: about that which, permeating us from within, helps us to find our way back to God and to our sense of belonging to one another.<\/p>\n With love, What happens if, instead of repeating an explanation that has been given many times, we compare it with the text to which it refers?<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":429,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s4y_en_tartalom":" What happens when we stop repeating a familiar explanation and return to the text on which it is based? For me, the account of unleavened bread raises precisely that question.<\/p>\n\n Exodus connects unleavened bread both with instructions given before the departure and with the urgency of leaving Egypt. (Exodus 12:8, 15\u201320, 33\u201339<\/a>) If we mention only the urgency, we leave out an important part of the account.<\/p>\n\n I am not questioning the worth of anyone's faith or the meaning of a festival in a community's life. I am examining a particular explanation: is it sufficient to say that the people ate unleavened bread simply because there was no time for the dough to rise?<\/p>\n\n Before narrating the final plague, Exodus describes preparations in which the lamb is selected on the tenth day of the month and kept until the fourteenth. (Exodus 12:3\u20136<\/a>) This is not a meal presented as wholly unprepared.<\/p>\n\n The instructions also specify that the meat is to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. (Exodus 12:8<\/a>) Unleavened bread therefore appears first as a requirement, not merely as the accidental result of a later shortage of time.<\/p>\n\n Readiness and haste are already part of those instructions: the people are to eat dressed for departure, with sandals on their feet and staffs in their hands. (Exodus 12:11<\/a>) The narrative does not leave them without any warning that they will need to go.<\/p>\n\n The same preceding passage sets out the seven-day observance and the removal of leaven from the houses. (Exodus 12:14\u201320<\/a>) The account gives unleavened bread a ritual place before describing the departure itself.<\/p>\n\n Later, the Egyptians press the people to leave, and the people take their dough before it has been leavened. (Exodus 12:33\u201334<\/a>) Verse 39 explains that they bake unleavened cakes because they have been driven out, cannot delay and have not prepared provisions for the journey. (Exodus 12:39<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n This is where my question begins. If unleavened bread had already been required, how can a lack of time at departure be the complete explanation?<\/p>\n\n An instruction and a circumstance do different things in a narrative. One tells people what to do; the other describes the conditions in which they act.<\/p>\n\n For that reason, I find a haste-only explanation incomplete. It does not account for the prior instruction in the same chapter. (Exodus 12:8\u201320, 33\u201339<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n Preparation does not rule out urgency. My objection is not to mentioning haste, but to allowing that one detail to stand in for everything the passage says.<\/p>\n\n This is a question about the explanation, not a verdict against Passover. A careful reading can hold the preparation, the departure and the observance together without turning their relationship into an accusation of deception.<\/p>\n\n In Matthew, Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to leaven that a woman mixes into flour until the whole batch is leavened. (Matthew 13:33<\/a>) Here, something small and initially hidden becomes the image of a transformation that reaches the whole.<\/p>\n\n I read this as a correction to a one-sided understanding of the symbol: leaven cannot simply mean something to reject in every context. That is a correction to a limited reading, not a claim that Jesus was correcting the Jewish observance of Passover.<\/p>\n\n The ritual instruction in Exodus and the parable in Matthew serve different purposes. Removing leaven in one setting does not prevent it from carrying a positive meaning in another. (Exodus 12:15\u201320<\/a>; Matthew 13:33<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n For me, the parable also offers an image of teaching received inwardly. It does not merely sit beside what we already know; it begins to work through the way we understand, respond and live.<\/p>\n\n The question is therefore not simply whether there is leaven. It is what we receive, what we nurture and what we allow to shape us.<\/p>\n\n Elsewhere, Jesus warns his disciples about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the passage explicitly explains that he is speaking about teaching rather than bread. (Matthew 16:6\u201312<\/a>) I take that distinction as a reason to examine the quality of a teaching, not as permission to disparage a religious community.<\/p>\n\nFirst, let\u2019s look at the order<\/h2>\n
The reason for the haste is then given<\/h2>\n
Jesus\u2019 teaching: setting the record straight<\/h2>\n
What we take in continues to have an impact<\/h2>\n
Georgina
Soul4you<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"First, look at the sequence<\/h2>\n\n
Then comes the urgency of leaving<\/h2>\n\n
Jesus' parable: more than one meaning<\/h2>\n\n