Yeast is the leaven in bread.
Before the Passover evening, the Israelites were commanded to remove all the leaven or yeast from their houses. During the Passover meal, they were to eat unleavened bread.
WHY?
Anciently, yeast was viewed as a corruptible agent. Although yeast makes bread rise, it also causes fermentation. Perhaps it was Jehovah’s way of teaching Israel to remove all corruption from their lives.
It may have also represented man’s inability to rise from corruption and put on incorruption without the gospel and without the Savior. Without the atonement, no man can put on incorruption for resurrection is not possible without Jesus Christ.
The Savior is our yeast. With the Savior in us (intimacy), we all rise. We rise from corruption, sin, addictions, anger, rage, weakness, and all manner of the natural man. Christ is the leaven of mankind as it pertains to salvation.
Alone we are unleavened bread, never to rise.
Hey, son, that was a good one. So many things in live can be explained if only we take the time to evaluate and ponder about them. thanks.
Thanks, Bro. Himmer.
I had previously heard the “leaven represents corruption” explanation, and it resonated with me. This “the Savior is our yeast” explanation also makes sense, (and I like the imagery of our inability to rise/ascend without the leaven/Christ) but I’m having trouble reconciling the two thoughts. Did the Israelites receive mixed messages when they were supposed to imagine leaven to represent the promised Messiah, and were simultaneously asked to remove leaven from their homes? I’m relatively sure that they weren’t meant to understand that the Savior should be removed from their homes. I can readily think of two other instances in which a symbol for hell is also a type of Christ’s love. They confuse me a little, but they seem to be in less direct conflict than this leaven symbolism. What details am I missing? What have I misunderstood?
In the spirit of Isaiah, there is dualism in the leaven. Remember the story of the Brazen Serpent being raised in the wilderness as a type of Jesus? The Israelites had only to gaze upon the representation of the Lord to be healed from the venomous snakes (serpents) that bit them.
A serpent is also a type of Lucifer. It slithers, its dishonest (forked tongue), and it represents evil. Thus we have dualism and opposition.
Each person will understand the meaning of the type depending upon their spiritual maturity. To some it will represent a very simple reminder, and to others, there will be layers of meaning and symbolism.
Thanks for that. The serpent was one of the two instances of contradicting duality of meaning that came to my mind. The other instance was the dual uses of water in Lehi’s vision as seen by Nephi. In the vision, however, there were two distinct bodies of water, each with a distinct meaning. In the specific example of the serpent on the pole (to my knowledge) there were not two opposing meanings implied at that occurrence; even though the serpent already had many centuries of established negative symbolism attached to it.
This leaven symbolism still isn’t entirely satisfying to me. I’m sure however, that upon pondering it more I’ll be able to satisfactorily disassociate the two meanings. The Israelites would have had to understand each implied meaning for leaven isolated from the other; would they have not? Are there similar scriptural accounts of one image carrying dualism and opposition in the same occurrence? Did the serpent on the pole represent something other than Christ, and is therefore one answer to my question?
Thanks again for this post. I love it when you get me really thinking!
If you read the post again, you will see that the primary reason given for the removal of leaven was the corruption version. The Savior connection is another way of viewing the story but from a deeper symbolic or next level approach, which Israel clearly could not handle. Moses barely got Israel out of Egypt, however, he could never remove Egypt from Israel.
EUREKA! I think I finally got it! The key must be that there is a conflict in symbolic meaning because there is a difference between the pre-passover Israelites and the post-passover Israelites. Because the Israelites symbolize our change during this ordinance, the meaning of the leaven must also have changed. They were in a fallen state and ate bread of this world; corruptible bread. They also worshiped after the way of this world; after the ways of the Egyptians; corruptible, idolatrous worship.
Paul implied to the Corinthians a distinction between OLD leaven and new leaven.
1 Cor 5:6-8
“…Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the OLD leaven, that ye may be a NEW lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with OLD leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
During the passover we symbolically witness the sacrifice of the Savior, and acknowledge His atonement for us.
AFTER the passover feast/ordinance (after we’ve purged ourselves of OLD leaven and corruption and idolatry) the Father again gives us leavened bread. But THIS is “the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” John 6:32-33
This feels much better to me. Do you think I’m on the right track? Do you have more light to shine on this for me? I’ve REALLY enjoyed this post and working this out. Thanks again.