Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possible Error in Peshitta 1Co. 5:8? - Leavened Bread
#1
Shlama friends,

Particularly for those who claim that the Peshitta is perfect and without error, how do you explain Paul instructing his audience to keep the festival of Unleavened Bread with leavened bread (khemira)?

Peshitta:  מטל הנא נעבד עדעדא לא בחמירא עתיקא ולא בחמירא דבישׁותא ודמרירותא אלא בחמירא דדכיותא ודקדישׁותא

Translation: "keep the festival ... with leavened bread."

This directly violates the Torah, and completely ruins the metaphor that Paul was making, which is that the Corinthians should be "unleavened" (patira) in 1 Co. 5:7.  Why then does the Peshitta say to keep the feast of Unleavened bread with leaven, while the Greek text appropriately reads "keep the feast... with unleavened bread (azymois)."

NOTE: I respect and love my Christian brothers, but I totally reject Christian dispensational answers that claim Paul didn't obey the Torah or teach others to obey it.  That is completely unscriptural, and I'll be glad to point that out, even though I'm not trying to engage that question now.

I'll just let you know that I respectfully disagree and reject any answers that fail to uphold the Torah, which Paul himself did (Act 24:14, Act 25:8, Act 21:24) and also taught others to uphold (Rom 2:13, Rom 3:31).  (Not to forget that Jesus required every command to be kept (Mat 5:17-20).  So I might save someone their time by letting you know that I don't believe that Paul would make such a blatant contradiction to the Torah requirement for Unleavened Bread (Exo 12:15-17).

Therefore, while I love the Peshitta, I'm just wondering if anyone has an insight that could explain how one can properly obey the Feast of Unleavened Bread with... leaven.  Again, the Greek has no such problem here, as it reads "unleavened bread."

As for my own attempt to rescue the Peshitta from error, I've batted one idea around: Only one place in the Apostolic Writings (i.e. "New Testament") does "leaven" appear in a positive light.  Everywhere else, including here in 1 Co. 5:7-8, leaven is a symbol of sin and wickedness, which was part of Paul's point--a secondary reason why the Peshitta reading doesn't fit.

But in Mat 13:33 / Luk 13:21, Jesus uses leaven as a positive metaphor for the Kingdom of God growing and expanding.  Despite the fact that I would like this to satisfy the issue in 1 Co. 5:7-8, it cannot because Paul is talking specifically about keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  And again, the Greek has no such problem here.

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that this discussion relates to "primacy" in the sense of which text came first--only to what I call "superiority"--which text is more accurate.  Yes, I'm happily aware of many good Peshitta primacy, or "superiority" examples, but I may have to conclude that the Greek scores a point here.

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#2
This is, I believe, actually a case for the accuracy of the Peshitta, partially because it is the more difficult reading. Here is what I personally see, as one who is Torah observant:

Although referencing the feast of מצה, I see him doing so as a principle of conduct in everyday life, not the specific feast itself. He specifically says in the previous verse that they are unleavened. However, their conduct was not matching who they truly were, hence the admonishment to clear out the old leaven (the carnal behavior they were exhibiting).

The subject matter has to do with their behavior, and its affect on the body of Messiah, and so when he said to observe the feast, he was reminding them of the 7 day feast in which unleavened bread was not to be found among them, that their behavior was to match the reality of who they were (unleavened) all the time.

So, because he was referencing behavior and its affects, he necessarily tells them guard their unleavened condition (keep the feast) and let their behavior (symbolized by leaven) not be what they were exhibiting, but of sincerity and truth, which would match who they were. In other words, let sincerity and truth be like leaven to have it affect the entire body in what is wholesome and good.

The very fact that he is telling these believers about this feast tells me that they were observing it, so it was a fitting reminder to them that the feast is much more than simple days on a calendar to do certain physical things, but contains lessons in life to live every day.

On a side note, I do not see scripture teaching, as is commonly taught, that leaven itself pictures sin. In itself it is neutral. I believe Yeshua used it to picture something negative that infects others, such as the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He also used it to picture the influence and growth of the Kingdom of God, as you pointed out, which is positive. I believe Paul used it here in Corinthians to denote both something negative and positive that infects others.

This answer may not satisfy, but it is again what comes to me in looking at the text.

Ronen
Reply
#3
Wink 
(10-18-2015, 12:23 AM)gregoryfl Wrote: This is, I believe, actually a case for the accuracy of the Peshitta, partially because it is the more difficult reading. Here is what I personally see, as one who is Torah observant:

Although referencing the feast of מצה, I see him doing so as a principle of conduct in everyday life, not the specific feast itself. He specifically says in the previous verse that they are unleavened. However, their conduct was not matching who they truly were, hence the admonishment to clear out the old leaven (the carnal behavior they were exhibiting).

The subject matter has to do with their behavior, and its affect on the body of Messiah, and so when he said to observe the feast, he was reminding them of the 7 day feast in which unleavened bread was not to be found among them, that their behavior was to match the reality of who they were (unleavened) all the time.

So, because he was referencing behavior and its affects, he necessarily tells them guard their unleavened condition (keep the feast) and let their behavior (symbolized by leaven) not be what they were exhibiting, but of sincerity and truth, which would match who they were. In other words, let sincerity and truth be like leaven to have it affect the entire body in what is wholesome and good.

The very fact that he is telling these believers about this feast tells me that they were observing it, so it was a fitting reminder to them that the feast is much more than simple days on a calendar to do certain physical things, but contains lessons in life to live every day.

On a side note, I do not see scripture teaching, as is commonly taught, that leaven itself pictures sin. In itself it is neutral. I believe Yeshua used it to picture something negative that infects others, such as the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees. He also used it to picture the influence and growth of the Kingdom of God, as you pointed out, which is positive. I believe Paul used it here in Corinthians to denote both something negative and positive that infects others.

This answer may not satisfy, but it is again what comes to me in looking at the text.

Ronen

Dear Ronen,

I very much enjoyed your reply, and I follow your reasoning to a good extent here.  Frankly, it's refreshing to hear your observant viewpoint Smile .

Surely, Paul's message was metaphorical, and not merely a teaching on how to observe a feast.  I'm aware of that, and am by no means basing a theological stipulation regarding the Peshitta's reading on a stiff interpretation such as that.  No, Paul is definitely being metaphorical, as you pointed out.

And yes, I agree that leaven is neither good nor bad in itself, which is proved from passages like Mat 13:33.  Therefore, except for the fact that Paul's metaphor is specifically based on the context of the terms "Passover" (פצחא) and "feast" (עדעדא), I agree that "leaven" could be a good symbol just as a bad one.

However, in the case of the Corinthians, it was a bad one, based on 1Co. 5:6-7... "Your boasting -> leaven" and "you are (supposed to be)... unleavened."  So based on Paul's usage in the first two verses, we know that his exhortation is to be unleavened.  At least, he appears to be heading in this direction.

Still, at this point I admit that if Paul wasn't staying within the specific framework of the Feast, which explicitly forbids leaven to even be seen--much less eaten--then I grant that he could have made a sudden switch to say "be leaven of goodness."  That would have been just fine.

But after looking at it one more time, as you know, the words  "Passover" (פצחא) and "feast" (עדעדא) are immediately followed by the instruction to "be leaven (khemira)..." in verse 8.

I just can't shake it, but it is a mystery that I'm still open to hearing other perspectives.  Now, I do remember reading at one point--I think from Thirdwoe--that one manuscript Etheridge used had patira instead of khemira, but I don't know if that is the case.

Best case scenario: I'm completely wrong and dropped a yodh somewhere along the line, and the Peshitta remains completely error free Tongue .  But I hold that this one looks to be in favor of the Greek--not as the earliest reading, which as you know, can't be deduced from this situation, but from a theologically sound standpoint.

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#4
Admittedly, it is certainly something that makes one think. Thank you for your kind words. Something else to consider as well is this:

They were familiar already with what not to have during חג מצות. For Paul to tell them not to keep the feast with old, wicked or bitter leaven, seems like an odd thing, for it almost appears, by itself, in referring to types of leaven to avoid, to imply that he wants them to use some kind of leaven, something different from the leaven having those qualities.

In other words, if I were to say to you, 'Don't use a sword of bronze or silver, but...'

you would be thinking that I am now going to tell you what kind of sword to use, such as:

'Don't use a sword of bronze or silver, but use a sword of iron'.

Just in thinking of the logic of how we speak of things, it does not make as much sense to us to say:

'Don't use a sword of bronze or silver, but use a bow of wood.'

If we were wanting to indicate the use of a bow rather than a sword, we would not put in types of swords, but simply say:

'Don't use a sword, but use a bow.'

Putting this in the context of what Paul was writing, to me it appears to make more sense to indicate leaven across the board, with the only differences being what types to avoid, and what types to use.

If I were living back then, knowing what I know about חג מצות, I might think, "Why is Paul even telling us not to keep the feast with certain bad types of leaven?" During the feast we do not have ANY leaven at all. This, along with what I shared above, brings me personally to the conclusion, that he is using פסח and מצות in a deeper level that speaks of behavior as having an affect on others around us.

Hope this at least gets us to really think deeply about the text, regardless of what conclusion we end up coming to. It has certainly done this for me, and I thank you for it brother.

Shlama,

Ronen
Reply
#5
"For Paul to tell them not to keep the feast with old, wicked or bitter leaven, seems like an odd thing, for it almost appears, by itself, in referring to types of leaven to avoid, to imply that he wants them to use some kind of leaven, something different from the leaven having those qualities. In other words, if I were to say to you, 'Don't use a sword of bronze or silver, but...' you would be thinking that I am now going to tell you what kind of sword to use, such as..."

Dear Ronen, this is a great point, and I agree with your reasoning. By Paul saying "NOT with the leaven of wickedness or deceit," BUT with the "__________ of sincerity and truth" we may expect to see leaven in that place. Let's agree to corner Paul when we get there and have a little chat with him Smile

Thomas
Reply
#6
Shlama brother Thomas,

I don't recall any variant in the Peshitta manuscripts, for this verse, not that I have seen anyway, or have ever heard about. And I haven't looked at the printed versions of the Peshitta texts Etheridge says he used as his base texts, so I don't know what those printed versions read there.

I think it should be noted here, that from the time of the Apostles onward, till today, all Christians in the Eastern lands, both The Church of the East, and all the Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as the Roman Catholic churches in the West (The RC until about 1000 years ago), used/use only Leavened Bread for their Eucharist celebration. The Roman Catholics switched to non-leavened wheat, but, for the 1st 1,000 years, they did as all Christians did and still do.

And this is based on ancient tradition, that says the meal which Mshikha and His Talmide (Disciples) partook of that night, was done the night BEFORE the start of Passover week proper, or the Feast of Unleavened Bread which included the Passover day proper, and which began the next Sundown/Day, with the start of Passover Day proper, when they began to eat unleavened bread as commanded by God.

I have heard it said that the last meal (supper), eaten the night before the Feast days were to begin, was the time to use up any bread that was leavened, that rather than waste the leaven by throwing it away, they baked the last of it for that last meal before the Feast was to begin on the evening of the 14th with Passover day starting it off.

Notice that the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the 7 day Feast) proper, was to begin the next day after the Passover Day proper, not before it.

Mshikha though, died before sundown right before the Day of Passover began, He was put to death while the lambs were being slaughtered and prepared for the Passover meal to be eaten that coming evening. The unleavened Bread was to be eaten from that evening on, and then for the 7 days following the Day of Passover proper.

The meal that Mshikha and His Talmide partook of then, was eaten the evening before the Passover proper began, the next evening. Leavened bread was allowed to be eaten during that meal, which occurred the night before the Passover meal, and the start of the Unleavened Bread Festival (7 days following the Passover day).

Check The Scriptures to see that this right. And if you see something other, please point it out here.

Blessings,
Chuck

.
Reply
#7
I have seen the same from my studies of this as well, and agree that it is true. I grew up being taught that the 'Last Supper' was a Passover sedar, but it was not, and the text plainly says so.

Ronen
Reply
#8
(10-30-2015, 01:36 PM)gregoryfl Wrote: I have seen the same from my studies of this as well, and agree that it is true. I grew up being taught that the 'Last Supper' was a Passover sedar, but it was not, and the text plainly says so.

Ronen

Interesting...

So, how should Matthew 26:17 be understood?

And on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, and said to him: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover ?
Reply
#9
Thank you all, dear brothers for your responses and insights. I appreciate and enjoy them. Personally, now isn't the time for me to discuss the Passover / "Last Supper" of Christ; but I'm still of the firm opinion that Paul was referring to the Torah-based feast of Unleavened Bread in 1Co 5:7-8--not a COE ritual. This is what I believe legitimate hermeneutics and exegesis requires, but I'm open to discuss doctrinal issues offline.

For the time being, I will refrain from using the charged term "error" to refer to what I see in the Peshitta for 1Co 5:7-8, but I think that the Greek's reading is more theologically sound. As Ronen pointed out, that doesn't necessarily make it first chronologically.

Finally, Ronen gave one suggestion (below), which I've put into my own words, and which I consider a possibility, but still not strong enough to overrule the enormous theological problem I would see with Paul telling people to keep the Unleavened Bread with "leaven."

"By Paul saying "NOT with the leaven of wickedness or deceit," BUT with the "__________ of sincerity and truth" we may expect to see leaven in that place."

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#10
As far as I know, the ancient Christians always used leavened bread {lakhma} when they partook of the Bread and the Cup, as Messiah commanded them to do, in memorial of His once and for all sacrifice, which ushered in The New Covenant.

If someone knows of any place it can be found where it shows they used unleavened bread for the memorial of Messiah's sacrifice, I would like to see it.
Reply
#11
Dear Thirdwoe,

I will definitely defer to your knowledge and experience regarding church rituals, as I'm unacquainted with them. I'm sure I could learn a great deal from you on these. But my understanding of Scripture would cause me to repeat either Gregory or Ronen's comment up above:

"Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Yeshua, saying, "Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?" (Mat 26:17ff)

I'm of the opinion that Yeshua ate the Passover with his disciples, not some other "Last Supper." But I'm not sure that this is relevant to the discussion about 1Co. 5:7-8 anyway. There, as in Mat 26, the terms for the Torah-based festivals, Passover and Unleavened Bread are explicitly stated in the text ("petzkha / patira").

I simply see no way around the conclusion that followers of Yeshua, whether Jewish or Gentile, are expected (by God's Word) to obey His commands; but more relevantly to this discussion, that Paul was specifically referring to the annual observance of Passover / Unleavened Bread. That was my concern with the Peshitta on this passage to begin with.

Note, I believe that the term "Passover" had become metonymic for the entire seven-day period that included Unleavened Bread (see Mat 26:17, Act 12:3-4), so that by saying "Passover" you could be referring to anytime during the Feast of Unleavened Bread also. But Mat 26 states that it was the Passover that they ate (Mat 26:19), and I don't see any way around that.

As for Christ's instruction to "do this in remembrance of me," I don't think any frequency was ever assigned to that, and I personally don't know if it matters whether leaven is used or not. I think that it only makes sense to remember Christ especially on the feast of Passover every year (if you observe it), since he is the "lamb" that was sacrificed for us (Isa 53, Jo. 1:29, 1Pe. 1:19, etc.).

Some Hebrew followers of Yeshua do "communion" every Friday night at the onset of the Sabbath. Personally, I like to try and remember his sacrifice anytime I eat. But if pressed for the most literal, scriptural means of observing Christ's command, I would certainly point to the annual Passover seder as the most direct fulfillment.

Thanks, by the way, for your continued study, love, and pursuit of the Scriptures--primarily the Peshitta. I'm interested to hear of any updates that you have regarding your projects.

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#12
(11-03-2015, 05:11 PM)distazo Wrote:
(10-30-2015, 01:36 PM)gregoryfl Wrote: I have seen the same from my studies of this as well, and agree that it is true. I grew up being taught that the 'Last Supper' was a Passover sedar, but it was not, and the text plainly says so.

Ronen

Interesting...

So, how should Matthew 26:17 be understood?

And on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, and said to him: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover ?

From the purely grammatical examination, the phrase ביומא דיו, (but in the day) in the Greek is τη δε (yet to the). This is an idiomatic expression meaning 'yet regarding' or 'but in reference to', or something similar to that. The Greek expression in particular reflects this nuance of meaning from the Aramaic. Not knowing this (willingly or otherwise) has led to much argumentation over the alleged contradiction between this account and John's, which plainly refers to the supper they were eating as being קדם עאדא דפצחא [before or near the feast of the Passover]. (Jn 13:1)

I therefore read the text in this way:

But regarding the time of the first of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, and said to him: Where do you desire that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?

Understanding this makes sense out of what has confused many, including myself, and makes more sense than having them prepare to eat the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, which would have been a day where no work could be done, and passover having been eaten the night before, according to the Tanakh.

This would be why early believers eating the last supper meal, as Thirdwoe pointed out, would have used leavened bread, as the Last supper happened the evening before passover and the days of unleavened bread.

Ronen
Reply
#13
Dear Ronen,

In all humility, I really believe that many Christians have confused this issue due to a failure to study Scripture thoroughly in its original Hebraic, or "Jewish" context. I'll give only a brief demonstration that convinces me, that without one shadow of doubt, Yeshua and his disciples ate the Passover--which would be with unleavened bread--and not some other Christian "Last Supper." I mean no offense to anyone who disagrees, but let's look at the evidence:

Point #1) Three out of four Gospels clearly state that it was the "Passover" (Mat 26:19-21, Mar 14:16-18, Luk 22:7-8). On this basis alone, even if there was a contradiction in John's Gospel (which there isn't), it would only make logical sense to take the testimony of 3/4 witnesses that Yeshua ate the Passover meal.

Point #2) Regarding your question about "first day of unleavened bread" (Mat 26:17) I understand the confusion, but think it can be easily resolved. The key is understanding what Scripture means by "the first day." And the fact is that different passages use this phrase in different ways. Some use it for the 14th of Abib while others use it for the 15th of Abib.

"'Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel" (Exo 12:15 - NASB)

As you know, Ronen, the leaven is supposed to be removed before Passover begins, not after the Passover on the 15th day of Abib. By then, you are already into the Feast of Unleavened Bread, so this citation from Exodus 12:15 proves that "first day" can actually refer to the 14th of Abib instead of the 15th. And that is how the Gospels use it in Mat 26:17, Mar 14:12).

Admittedly though, other passages use "first day" to refer to the 15th of Abib, and one of those passages is the very next verse after the one above:

"In the first day there shall be to you a set-apart gathering, and in the seventh day a set-apart gathering" (Exo 12:16 - NASB)

Now Ronen, we know that this is referring to the 15th of Abib, but as I pointed out above, the previous verse (15) stated that the leaven should be removed on the "first day." I believe the apparent contradiction in the Tanakh timing is mitigated by recognizing that Moses seems to give details from different angles or approaches (cf. Exo 12:17-20, Lev 23:4-6, Num 28:16-17, Deu 16:8).

Think of a family trip that you have taken. Some may argue over which was the "first day" of the trip. Was it when you left the house, supposing you left your house late in the evening? Or was it the first complete day that you were gone from the house, which on a calendar, would be the next day of the week. Which do you call the "first day" of the trip?

At any rate, the point is that when the Synoptic Gospels say "first day of Unleavened Bread" it simply means the daylight portion of the 14th, which will then "touch" the 15th at evening when Unleavened Bread technically begins. There are simply two meanings, or rather, ways of applying the phrase "first day" in Scripture.

Point #3) John's Gospel: This is where Hebraic context is crucial for the proper understanding. Again, I already made the point that three out of four Gospels clearly state that the "Last Supper" was the Passover seder. But John's requires some deeper understanding of Jewish culture to rectify.

The short answer that may resolve the apparent contradiction is that what the Pharisees were calling the "Passover" in John 18:28 was actually the "chagigah" offering, which could be done on either the 14th or the 15th. In their case, they apparently still needed to perform this ritual before the end of the 15th, and they didn't want to become defiled in the Praetorium. Matthew Henry's commentary (a Christian) nails this on the head for John ch. 18:

"The chief priests and elders, though they came along with the prisoner, that the thing might be done effectually, went not into the judgment-hall, because it was the house of an uncircumcised Gentile, lest they should be defiled, but kept out of doors, that they might eat the passover, not the paschal lamb (that was eaten the night before) but the passover-feast, upon the sacrifices which were offered on the fifteenth day, the Chagigah, as they called it, the passover-bullocks spoken of Deut. xvi. 2; 2 Chron. xxx. 24; xxxv. 8, 9. These they were to eat of, and therefore would not go into the court, for fear of touching a Gentile, and thereby contracting, not a legal, but only a traditional pollution."

John Gill's commentary--a must have for Christians who want to learn the Hebraic context of Scripture--concurs with Matthew Henry above. I won't copy his whole commentary for John 18:28, but I highly recommend it for those who are confused about the Passover / Last Supper debate. Gill agrees with Henry, as follows:

"that they might eat the passover; pure and undefiled; not the passover lamb, for that they had eaten the night before; but the "Chagigah", or feast on the fifteenth day of the month."

In conclusion then, I believe it is a bullet-proof case, when these factors are all taken into account, that 4 out of 4 Gospels say that Yeshua ate the Passover--the Hebraic, Torah-based Passover, which by law would have been with UNLEAVENED BREAD (Exo 12:8).

I'm still not sure if this is relevant to our discussion on 1Co. 5:7-8; but again, I say that Yeshua and his disciples lived and taught the Torah--not Christian theology, which didn't evolve until ca. 120CE onwards, and especially shaped up with Constantine three hundred years later.

Again, I didn't intend to open this subject, but please at least study church history and understand that Christian theology is diametrically opposed to what Yeshua and his disciples taught in some areas. I promise that I'm not trying to step on toes, but unless you want your Scripture to be broken (Joh 10:35), then I suggest taking a step back from church doctrines and studying Scripture in its original context, and with well-known principles of exegesis used by the people who wrote the Scriptures.

Shlama,
Thomas
Reply
#14
Shalom Thomas,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and understanding, although I know you did not want to get into that aspect of this. I do (as I am enabled) try to look at all the text from its Semitic foundation, although of course, there is a lifetime of learning to be had in the process.

As most postings, which end up in argumentation and lashon hara, tend to only focus on what is disagreeable, and I do not wish to entertain that, I would like to share what I agree with in your post:

1. Leaven must be removed before Pesach begins, not after. Since unleavened bread was eaten with the Pesach sacrifice, the actual day it was removed was on the 14th.

2. Moses did indeed give instruction using different vantage points, or angles, as you put it. For example, in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, unleavened bread is to be eaten for 7 days. In Deuteronomy, it is to be eaten for 6 days. This appears to be a contradiction, but is not.

3. I have read somewhat of the חגיגה (' little celebration portion' is how I translate it, from the root חג) in the Babylonian Talmud, and agree at least that it does tie in with what took place during that time. This is where further research on my part is needed.

There are things in the accounts which still pose problems for me accepting that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, among them being the point I and Thirdwoe brought out concerning the bread they ate, as well as having Yeshua die after the Passover lambs were killed, not at the same time, if Yeshua did indeed eat the slaughtered Passover lamb the night before. All in all though, I continue to search and look at other points and if I recognize something that causes me to realize a different understanding, by all means I am willing to embrace it.

Thank you again,

Ronen
Reply
#15
Someone told me long ago that the reason why the families of Israel were told to eat the lamb with unleavened bread (Exodus 12:8) was because Egypt were executing a genocide on them, and in such situations it is more important to act fast than to excel in cooking.

Quote:And thus ye do eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand, and ye have eaten it in haste; it is Jehovah's passover, — Exodus 12:11, YLT.

Curiously, while this explanation seems well thought trough, it requires that verses 15-20 be a later addition. It would say passover should be celebrated with the most simple food that can support physical activity (such as wandering through a wilderness), and that no effort should be made to follow traditions in cooking or pastry.

So, if you have leavened bread, if I understand this right, and you discard it and bake unleavened bread just for the sake of observing some rule or regulation, that would violate the spirit of the instructions as they were originally given. However, if Exodus 12:15-20, saying we may not even posses any leaven, were to be authentic, then all I see are contradictions too.

And I used to be member of a church which used meticulously prepared unleavened bread and red wine. And we wore suits and ties. But nowadays I feel pretty confident I have understood the point, so I go with potato chips and cranberry juice.  Cool
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)